COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED September 21, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-1906-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
HERMAN L. RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Sauk County:
JAMES EVENSON, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Gartzke, P.J., and Dykman, J.
PER CURIAM. Herman L. Richardson appeals from a
judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of sexually
assaulting his mentally retarded stepdaughter, contrary to
§§ 940.225(2)(c) and (3), Stats. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Richardson disputes
neither that the alleged victim was suffering from a mental deficiency which
rendered her incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse, nor that he knew of
her incapacity to consent. Rather, he
argues that the evidence was insufficient to permit a jury finding that he
actually had intercourse with the victim.
We disagree.
In reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, the test is not whether this court is convinced of
the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether this court
can conclude that the jury, acting reasonably, was convinced. On review, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to sustaining the conviction. State v. Hamilton,
120 Wis.2d 532, 541, 356 N.W.2d 169, 173 (1984). Under this standard, we reject Richardson's argument.
At trial, the victim
testified by words and gestures that Richardson had put his "go
potty" into her vulvar and anal areas.
The victim also indicated that this occurred during "kissing
time" while Richardson laid on top of her and "suffocated" her. Further questioning established that, in the
victim's limited vocabulary, a "go potty" is a penis. A reasonable jury could conclude that the
victim testified that penetration, and hence intercourse, had occurred.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.