## Facts

- Scott Kodanko was alone in a three-sided bus shelter when Walter Stewart and Moore entered and stood in the shelter’s only opening, while Levy remained just outside.
- Moore demanded, “Give us some change.” After Kodanko refused, Stewart repeated the demand several times, increasingly loudly.
- Stewart reached into his coat pocket; Moore made a comment implying Stewart had a gun (e.g., telling him to put the gun away), though no weapon was displayed.
- Levy entered, urged the others to leave, and displayed money while stating he did not want Kodanko’s money; the three men then left.
- Kodanko testified he felt threatened during the brief encounter; there was no physical contact, no explicit threat of violence, and Kodanko did not attempt to leave.
- Stewart was convicted by a jury of attempted robbery. The court of appeals reversed on insufficiency grounds, characterizing the conduct as panhandling; the state sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the prosecution and the verdict, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Stewart intended to commit robbery (not merely panhandle) and took acts toward its commission.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s inference that Stewart intended to steal by intimidation.
- The court reinstated Stewart’s conviction for attempted robbery.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the question is whether any reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- Criminal intent may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or substitute their inferences for the jury’s.
- Robbery by threat or intimidation does not require an express verbal threat, physical contact, or a displayed weapon; fear may be induced through positioning, gestures, tone, and implied weapon references.
- Requests for money may support an attempted-robbery inference when accompanied by circumstances suggesting coercion or implied force, such as blocking egress, repeated escalating demands, and suggestions of a weapon.

## Conclusion

Because the jury could reasonably interpret the group’s positioning, repeated demands, and implied gun reference as an effort to obtain money through fear rather than a mere request, the evidence supported attempted robbery and the conviction was reinstated.


State v. Stewart, 420 N.W.2d 44 (Wis. 1988)