State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26
For Harvey: Christopher William Rose
Issue/Holding: Rejecting the JI Committee definition of “cunnilingus,” the court “ conclude(s) that the statutory scheme of the sexual assault law does not require proof of ‘stimulation of the clitoris or vulva,’” ¶¶11-21.
¶21 The complaint and the undisputed evidence presented at the preliminary hearing demonstrated that Harvey performed an act of nonconsensual cunnilingus by placing his mouth on the victim’s genital area. The sexual assault law does not require that the victim’s clitoris or vulva be stimulated as the result of such contact or that the victim experience stimulation in any other manner. We reject Harvey’s argument to the contrary as an offensive and perverse notion under current sexual assault law, and we refuse to endorse it. The trial court correctly found that the criminal complaint and the preliminary hearing evidence established a factual basis in support of the element of sexual intercourse by cunnilingus pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 940.255(3) [sic, 940.225(3)].