Errata: State v. Roy Malvitz
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 97-1142 NO. 97-1142 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. ROY MALVITZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ERRATA SHEET Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Court of Appeals P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701-1688 Court of Appeals District I 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400 Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918 Court of Appeals District III 740 Third Street Wausau, WI 54403-5784 Jennifer Krapf Administrative Assistant 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 Peg Carlson Chief Staff Attorney 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 Court of Appeals District II 2727 N. Grandview Blvd. Waukesha, WI 53188-1672 Court of Appeals District IV 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 Hon. John D. McKay Trial Court Judge 100 S. Jefferson Brown County Courthouse Green Bay, WI 54301 Lynn Verheyen, Trial Court Clerk 100 S. Jefferson Brown County Courthouse Green Bay, WI 54301 (L. C. # 95-CF-33) NO. 97-1142 Gerald P. Boyle Boyle, Boyle & Smith, S.C. 1124 West Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Mary E. Burke Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 William C. Wolford Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707 Dana J. Johnson Asst. District Attorney P.O. Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page 10 is to be substituted for page 10 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on November 4, 1997. Dated this 13th day of November, 1997. 2 NO. 97-1142 indicating that the girl was not inappropriately dressed, was walking casually to her home, and did not appear to be in distress. Direct evidence of a defendant s intent is frequently a matter to be determined from circumstantial evidence. In this case, Malvitz concedes that he approached the young girl in question twice, that he paused at an intersection for several minutes, and that he asked her if she wished to take a ride in his car. Although he claimed that his intent was innocent and that he paused at the intersection only to refill his coffee cup, the jury was not required to accept his explanation. Malvitz s behavior, which so concerned the postal carrier that he decided to follow him, and the fact that Malvitz s testimony about the girl s apparent distress was inconsistent with other testimony, are sufficient to permit a finding that his actions were intended for some type of sexual gratification. Therefore, we reject Malvitz s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. By the Court. Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded. Not recommended for publication in the official reports. 10
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
