Swikert v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Swikert v. State

211 N.W.2d 515, 60 Wis. 2d 772, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1404

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1973

DocketNos. State 152, 153

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 N.W.2d 515 (Swikert 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

Swikert v. State, 211 N.W.2d 515, 60 Wis. 2d 772, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1404 (Wis. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs in error contend the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to support their convictions for rape and sexual perversion. This court has often said the question of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence is for the trier of fact to determine. Bautista v. State (1971), 53 Wis. 2d 218, 191 N. W. 2d 725; Brown v. State (1973), 59 Wis. 2d 200, 207 N. W. 2d 602. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction, the court concludes the testimony of the victim was not inherently incredible and that the evidence presented was sufficient that the jury could be convinced of the plaintiffs’ in error guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiffs’ in error contention that the statute proscribing sexual perversion, sec. 944.17, Stats., is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad, has been answered by this court in Jones v. State (1972), 55 Wis. 2d 742, 200 N. W. 2d 587.

The judgments are affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs in error contend the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to support their convictions for rape and sexual perversion. This court has often said the question of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence is for the trier of fact to determine. Bautista v. State (1971), 53 Wis. 2d 218, 191 N. W. 2d 725; Brown v. State (1973), 59 Wis. 2d 200, 207 N. W. 2d 602. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction, the court concludes the testimony of the victim was not inherently incredible and that the evidence presented was sufficient that the jury could be convinced of the plaintiffs’ in error guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiffs’ in error contention that the statute proscribing sexual perversion, sec. 944.17, Stats., is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad, has been answered by this court in Jones v. State (1972), 55 Wis. 2d 742, 200 N. W. 2d 587.

The judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 N.W.2d 515, 60 Wis. 2d 772, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swikert-v-state-wis-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack