¶1(dissenting). I am unable to bring my mind to the conclusion that the evidence justifies a conviction for rape. In my judgment the admissions of the complaining witness as to her failure to resist as well as to her active assistance in the very act make a legal conviction for rape *268impossible witbin tbe rales laid down in O’Boyle v. State, 100 Wis. 296, 75 N. W. 989; Brown v. State, 127 Wis. 193, 106 N. W. 536. To my mind tbe statement tbat sbe was '“paralyzed with fear” is absolutely disproven by ber own admissions as to wbat sbe did and wbat sbe omitted to do. It seems to me tbat hereafter all tbat will be necessary to turn fornication into rape will be for tbe complaining witness to testify tbat sbe was paralyzed with fear, no matter bow incredible tbe physical facts may make tbat statement appear.
142 Wis. 260
Loescher v. State
Decided March 15, 1910
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1910-03-15
<p> Rape: Resistance: Threats: Examination of witnesses: Leading questions: Discretion. </p> <p>1. To constitute rape the act must be committed by force and against tbe will of the female; but where she is rendered insensible through fright, or ceases resistance under fear of death or great bodily harm, the consummated act is rape.</p> <p>2. A conviction of rape is sustained in this case upon evidence which is held sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the prosecutrix ceased to resist because her will was overcome by threats of great bodily harm. Winslow, C. J., and Maeshall, J., dissent.</p> <p>■3. The allowance of leading questions Is a matter largely in the discretion of the trial court. Such questions being necessary in this case in order to get at the facts, their allowance was not an abuse of discretion.</p>
Relies on Brown v. State · O'Boyle v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1910-03-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1973
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →