Le Barron V State Brief
He appealed and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Facts Jodean Randen, a housewife, wass walking home when she crossed paths with the Le Barron. He grabbed her and demanded her purse. She gave him the purse and started quickly walking away. When he discovered the purse was empty, he went after her, grabbed her, and told her not to scream. He then led her to the end of the bridge; she went willingly, fearing harm.
As they approached the coal shack at the end of the bridge, he warned her not to do anything or he’d kill her. At this time, Ms. Randen thought le Barron had a knife. Inside the shack, Le Barron unzipped his pants and started pulling up the victim’s skirt and said “You know what else I want”. She was finally able to get his hand off of her mouth and told him that she was pregnant. Le Barron realized that she was, in fact, pregnant and left her alone. He warned her that if she screamed or called the police, he would kill her. Appeal
Le Barron appealed on the grounds that he desisted from the rape before he had the opportunity to form intent, and that the pregnancy, which caused him to desist was intrinsic and not an “extraneous factor” as is outlined in the statute (He had already formed the intent and would commit the crime except for another person’s intervention or another extraneous factor). Opinion The court said that it the defendant’s overt acts were sufficient to support the inference that he intended to rape the victim.
He threatened Randen that he would kill her if she refused to cooperate. He forced her into the shack against her will * His comment, “You know what else I want”, and unzipping his pants and lifting her skirt The jury had the right to assume he was capable to carry out his threat if the victim resisted. They concluded that the jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt from Le Barron’s overt acts that he had the intent to rape Randen. The argument that the pregnancy that caused defendant to desist does not qualify as an “extraneous factor” is in conflict with a previous holding in State v. Damms. The Court affirmed Rule of Law
Overt acts are the primary means of determining intent. Note Case People v. Johnson 720 P. 2d 72 (Colo. App. 1987) Facts Following a fight with a friend outside a bar, Floyd Johnson, went to his house, got his . 22 rifle and ten cartridges, went back to the bar, crawled under a pickup truck across the street and sat in wait for his friend. He later testified that he at first intended to shoot the friend to “pay him back” for the beating he received earlier. The pickup truck’s owner arrived, the defendant got his keys, told him to sit in the truck, and gave him beer.
He then got back under the truck to wait some more. Passerby’s alerted the police who arrested the defendant. He also testified that while waiting for his friend, he started sobering up and thinking things over. He removed the bullets from the gun and put them in his pocket, and made plans to have a party at his house with the people in the pickup. They were drinking and conversing when the police arrived. Opinion The Trial Court had not allowed the instruction on affirmative defense of abandonment and renunciation. The Appeals court reversed and sent it back to trial, so that the instruction could be given.