Home/Wisconsin Supreme Court/Means v. State

Means v. State

104 N.W. 815, 125 Wis. 650, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 199
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 3, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 104 N.W. 815 (Means v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Means v. State, 104 N.W. 815, 125 Wis. 650, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 199 (Wis. 1905).

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of a crime against nature under sec. 4591, Stats. 1898, committed by inducing a boy seven years of age to insert his male organ in the mouth of the plaintiff in error. Upon writ of error he claims that as the boy was incapable of penetration in the sense in which that word is used in rape, and incapable of emission, there was no crime under sec. 4591, but only an indecent assault under sec. 4591a, Stats. 1898.

We are unwilling to soil the pages of our Reports with lengthened discussion of the loathsome subject. There is sufficient authority to sustain a conviction in such a case, and, if there were none, we would feel no hesitancy in placing an authority upon the books. Reg. v. Allen, 1 Den. C. C. 364; Kelly v. People, 192 Ill. 119, 61 N. E. 425.

It is said that the boy was an accomplice, and that no con[651]*651viction can "be sustained npon bis uncorroborated evidence. Sncb is not the law in this state. It is in the discretion of the trial court whether to direct an acquittal or not. Black v. State, 59 Wis. 471, 18 N. W. 457; Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527, 63 N. W. 1061. Moreover, an accomplice is one who consents, and a boy of such tender years is not capable of legal consent, and hence is not an accomplice. Kelly v. People, supra; Mascolo v. Montesanto, 61 Conn. 50, 23 Atl. 714.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Pettijohn
541 S.W.2d 74 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)
State v. Yancey
145 N.W.2d 145 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)
Sparkman v. State
133 N.W.2d 776 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
Fisher v. State
277 S.W.2d 340 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1955)
State v. Rutledge
267 S.W.2d 625 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1954)
State v. Massey
266 P.2d 359 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1954)
Barton v. State
53 S.E.2d 707 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Cole v. State
1946 OK CR 116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1946)
State v. Schwartz
10 N.W.2d 370 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
State v. Panther
300 N.W. 291 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1941)
State v. Keckonen
84 P.2d 341 (Montana Supreme Court, 1938)
State v. Peterson
17 P.2d 925 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
Verhaalen v. State
218 N.W. 378 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1928)
Garrad v. State
216 N.W. 496 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1927)
Wise v. Commonwealth
115 S.E. 508 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1923)
Ephraim v. State
89 So. 344 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)
State v. . Griffin
94 S.E. 678 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
State v. Yates
181 Iowa 539 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Jones v. State
88 S.E. 712 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
State v. Katz
181 S.W. 425 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 N.W. 815, 125 Wis. 650, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/means-v-state-wis-1905.