(5) Subsection (1)
does not apply to any tenant against whom a civil judgment has been entered for punitive damages because the tenant left the premises with unpaid rent.
History: 1989 a. 336
Use of cheating tokens.
Whoever obtains the property or services of another by depositing anything which he or she knows is not lawful money or an authorized token in any receptacle used for the deposit of coins or tokens is subject to a Class C forfeiture.
History: 1977 c. 173
Refusal to pay for a motor bus ride. 943.225(2)
Whoever intentionally enters a motor bus that transports persons for hire and refuses to pay, without delay, upon demand of the operator or other person in charge of the motor bus, the prescribed transportation fare is subject to a Class E forfeiture.
History: 1987 a. 171
Operating vehicle without owner's consent. 943.23(1)(a)
"Drive" means the exercise of physical control over the speed and direction of a vehicle while it is in motion.
"Major part of a vehicle" means any of the following:
Each door allowing entrance to or egress from the passenger compartment.
The frame or, in the case of a unitized body, the supporting structure which serves as the frame.
"Operate" includes the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a vehicle necessary to put it in motion.
Whoever, while possessing a dangerous weapon and by the use of, or the threat of the use of, force or the weapon against another, intentionally takes any vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class B felony.
Whoever violates sub. (1g)
and causes great bodily harm to another is guilty of a Class B felony and shall be sentenced to not less than 10 years of imprisonment, unless the sentencing court otherwise provides. If the court places the person on probation or imposes a sentence less than the 10-year presumptive minimum sentence, it shall place its reasons for doing so on the record.
Whoever violates sub. (1g)
and causes the death of another is guilty of a Class A felony.
Whoever intentionally takes and drives any vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class D felony.
Whoever intentionally drives or operates any vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class E felony.
Whoever knows that the owner does not consent to the driving or operation of a vehicle and intentionally accompanies, as a passenger in the vehicle, a person while he or she violates sub. (1g)
is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Whoever intentionally removes a major part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class E felony. Whoever intentionally removes any other part or component of a vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
In addition to the other penalties provided for violation of this section, a judge may require a violator to pay restitution to or on behalf of a victim regardless of whether the violator is placed on probation under s. 973.09
. If restitution is ordered, the court shall consider the financial resources and future ability of the violator to pay and shall determine the method of payment. Upon the application of any interested party, the court may schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the value of the victim's pecuniary loss resulting from the offense.
To sustain a conviction for operating a car without the owner's consent, it is not necessary that the driver be the person who actually took the car. Edwards v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 249
, 174 N.W.2d 269
Leaving a vehicle because of the threat of imminent arrest is involuntary relinquishment, not abandonment under sub. (2). State v. Olson, 106 Wis. 2d 572
, 317 N.W.2d 448
Restitution under sub. (6) (b) is analyzed in the same manner as restitution under the general statute, s. 973.20. A defendant is entitled to a hearing, although it may be informal, to challenge the existence of damage to the victim, as well as the amount of damage. If damage results from a criminal episode in which the defendant played any part, the defendant is jointly and severally liable in restitution for the amount of damages. State v. Madlock, 230 Wis. 2d 324
, 602 N.W.2d 104
(Ct. App. 1999).
Sub. (1r) is applicable if the taking of the vehicle is a substantial factor in the victim's death. A substantial factor is not only the primary or immediate cause, but includes other significant factors. State v. Miller, 231 Wis. 2d 447
, 605 N.W.2d 567
(Ct. App. 1999).
Issue of worthless check. 943.24(1)
Whoever issues any check or other order for the payment of not more than $1,000 which, at the time of issuance, he or she intends shall not be paid is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Whoever issues any single check or other order for the payment of more than $1,000 or whoever within a 15-day period issues more than one check or other order amounting in the aggregate to more than $1,000 which, at the time of issuance, the person intends shall not be paid is guilty of a Class E felony.
Any of the following is prima facie evidence that the person at the time he or she issued the check or other order for the payment of money, intended it should not be paid:
Proof that, at the time of issuance, the person did not have an account with the drawee; or
Proof that, at the time of issuance, the person did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee and that the person failed within 5 days after receiving notice of nonpayment or dishonor to pay the check or other order; or
Proof that, when presentment was made within a reasonable time, the person did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee and the person failed within 5 days after receiving notice of nonpayment or dishonor to pay the check or other order.
This section does not apply to a postdated check or to a check given for a past consideration, except a payroll check.
In addition to the other penalties provided for violation of this section, a judge may order a violator to pay restitution under s. 973.20
In actions concerning violations of ordinances in conformity with this section, a judge may order a violator to make restitution under s. 800.093
If the court orders restitution under pars. (a)
, any amount of restitution paid to the victim under one of those paragraphs reduces the amount the violator must pay in restitution to that victim under the other paragraph.
The grace period under sub. (3) does not transform the issuance of a worthless check into a debt for which one may not be imprisoned under Art. I, sec. 16. Locklear v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 603
, 273 N.W.2d 334
Checks cashed at a dog track for the purpose of making bets were void gambling contracts under s. 895.055 and could not be enforced under this statute although returned for nonsufficient funds. State v. Gonelly, 173 Wis. 2d 503
, 496 N.W.2d 671
(Ct. App. 1992).
The distinction between present and past consideration under sub. (4) is discussed. State v. Archambeau, 187 Wis. 2d 501
, 523 N.W.2d 150
(Ct. App. 1994).
Each different group of checks totalling more than $1,000, issued during the 15 day period, may be be the basis for a separate charge under sub. (2). State v. Hubbard, 206 Wis. 2d 650
, 558 N.W.2d 126
(Ct. App. 1996).
Worthless checks; civil liability. 943.245(1)
In this section, "pecuniary loss" means:
All special damages, but not general damages, including, without limitation because of enumeration, the money equivalent of loss resulting from property taken, destroyed, broken or otherwise harmed and out-of-pocket losses, such as medical expenses; and
Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the victim resulting from the filing of charges or cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of the offense under s. 943.24
Any person who incurs pecuniary loss, including any holder in due course of a check or order, may bring a civil action against any adult or emancipated minor who:
Knew, should have known or recklessly disregarded the fact that the check or order was drawn on an account that did not exist, was drawn on an account with insufficient funds or was otherwise worthless.
If the person who incurs the loss prevails, the judgment in the action shall grant monetary relief for all of the following:
The face value of whatever checks or orders were involved.
No additional proof is required for an award of exemplary damages under this paragraph.
Notwithstanding the limitations of s. 799.25
, all actual costs of the action, including reasonable attorney fees.
Notwithstanding sub. (2) (c)
, the total amount awarded for exemplary damages and reasonable attorney fees may not exceed $500.
Any recovery under this section shall be reduced by the amount recovered as restitution for the same act under ss. 800.093
At least 20 days prior to commencing an action, as specified in s. 801.02
, under this section, the plaintiff shall notify the defendant, by mail, of his or her intent to bring the action. Notice of nonpayment or dishonor shall be sent by the payee or holder of the check or order to the drawer by regular mail supported by an affidavit of service of mailing or by a certificate of mailing obtained from the U.S. post office from which the mailing was made. The plaintiff shall mail the notice to the defendant's last-known address or to the address provided on the check or order. If the defendant pays the check or order prior to the commencement of the action, he or she is not liable under this section.
The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred under s. 943.24
or that he or she incurred a pecuniary loss as a result of the circumstances described in sub. (6)
. A conviction under s. 943.24
is not a condition precedent to bringing an action, obtaining a judgment or collecting that judgment under this section.
In this subsection, "past consideration" does not include work performed, for which a person is entitled to a payroll check.
Whoever issues any check or other order for the payment of money given for a past consideration which, at the time of issuance, the person intends shall not be paid is liable under this section.
A person is not criminally liable under s. 943.30
for any civil action brought in good faith under this section.
Nothing in this section precludes a plaintiff from bringing the action under ch. 799
if the amount claimed is within the jurisdictional limits of s. 799.01 (1) (d)
Transfer of encumbered property. 943.25(1)
Whoever, with intent to defraud, conveys real property which he or she knows is encumbered, without informing the grantee of the existence of the encumbrance is guilty of a Class E felony.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class E felony:
Conceals, removes or transfers any personal property in which he or she knows another has a security interest; or
In violation of the security agreement, fails or refuses to pay over to the secured party the proceeds from the sale of property subject to a security interest.
It is prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud within the meaning of sub. (2) (a)
if a person, with knowledge that the security interest exists, removes or sells the property without either the consent of the secured party or authorization by the security agreement and fails within 72 hours after service of written demand for the return of the property either to return it or, in the event that return is not possible, to make full disclosure to the secured party of all the information the person has concerning its disposition, location and possession.
In this section "security interest" means an interest in property which secures payment or other performance of an obligation; "security agreement" means the agreement creating the security interest; "secured party" means the person designated in the security agreement as the person in whose favor there is a security interest or, in the case of an assignment of which the debtor has been notified, the assignee.
In prosecutions for violation of sub. (2)
arising out of transfers of livestock subject to a security agreement in violation of the terms of the security agreement, evidence that the debtor who transferred the livestock signed or endorsed any writing arising from the transaction, including a check or draft, which states that the transfer of the livestock is permitted by the secured party establishes a rebuttable presumption of intent to defraud.