Berg v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
On this appeal the defendant contends that the uncontroverted testimony that the assailant of the prosecutrix had no erection during the incident in question establishes that such assailant had no intent to “perform acts and attain a result which, if accomplished, would constitute [the crime of rape].” We are satisfied that this defense is without merit. Although it is apparent that the inability of an assailant to achieve an erection is a defense to the crime of rape, it is not a defense to the charge of attempted rape. 1 Wharton’s, Criminal Law and Procedure, p. 652, sec. 314, points out,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Whitty v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Lock v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- State v. HutnikWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Gauthier v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. EsserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. WyssWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
- Holmes v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Rogers v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Haskins v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Zebrowski v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.