940.05 Annotation
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte,
2003 WI 42,
261 Wis. 2d 249,
661 N.W.2d 381,
01-3063.
940.05 Annotation
Importance of clarity in law of homicide: The Wisconsin revision. Dickey, Schultz & Fullin. 1989 WLR 1323 (1989).
940.06
940.06
Second-degree reckless homicide. 940.06(1)(1)
Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being is guilty of a Class D felony.
940.06(2)
(2) Whoever recklessly causes the death of an unborn child is guilty of a Class D felony.
940.06 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1988: Second-degree reckless homicide is analogous to the prior offense of homicide by reckless conduct. The revised statute clearly requires proof of a subjective mental state, i.e., criminal recklessness. See s. 939.24 and the NOTE thereto. [Bill 191-S]
940.06 Annotation
Second-degree reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. State v. Lechner,
217 Wis. 2d 392,
576 N.W.2d 912 (1998),
96-2830.
940.06 Annotation
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte,
2003 WI 42,
261 Wis. 2d 249,
661 N.W.2d 381,
01-3063.
940.06 Annotation
The second-degree reckless homicide statute requires both the creation of an objectively unreasonable and substantial risk of human death or great bodily harm and the actor's subjective awareness of that risk. The circuit court's refusal to instruct the jury about the effect of a parent's sincere belief in prayer treatment for their child on the subjective awareness element of second-degree reckless homicide, did not undermine the parents' ability to defend themselves. The second-degree reckless homicide statute does not require that the actor be subjectively aware that his or her conduct is a cause of the death of his or her child. The statute and the jury instructions require only that the actor be subjectively aware that his or her conduct created the unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. State v. Neumann,
2013 WI 58,
348 Wis. 2d 455,
832 N.W.2d 560,
11-1044.
940.06 Annotation
Importance of clarity in law of homicide: The Wisconsin revision. Dickey, Schultz & Fullin. 1989 WLR 1323 (1989).
940.07
940.07
Homicide resulting from negligent control of vicious animal. Whoever knowing the vicious propensities of any animal intentionally allows it to go at large or keeps it without ordinary care, if such animal, while so at large or not confined, kills any human being who has taken all the precautions which the circumstances may permit to avoid such animal, is guilty of a Class G felony.
940.07 History
History: 1977 c. 173;
2001 a. 109.
940.07 Annotation
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte,
2003 WI 42,
261 Wis. 2d 249,
661 N.W.2d 381,
01-3063.
940.08
940.08
Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire. 940.08(1)(1)
Except as provided in sub.
(3), whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
940.08(2)
(2) Whoever causes the death of an unborn child by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
940.08(3)
(3) Subsection
(1) does not apply to a health care provider acting within the scope of his or her practice or employment.
940.08 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1988: The definition of the offense is broadened to include highly negligent handling of fire, explosives and dangerous weapons in addition to firearm, airgun, knife or bow and arrow. See s. 939.22 (10). [Bill 191-S]
940.08 Annotation
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte,
2003 WI 42,
261 Wis. 2d 249,
661 N.W.2d 381,
01-3063.
940.08 Annotation
In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 2) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 3) the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois,
2018 WI 73,
382 Wis. 2d 414,
913 N.W.2d 812,
16-1409.
940.09
940.09
Homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm. 940.09(1)(1)
Any person who does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub.
(1c):
940.09(1)(a)
(a) Causes the death of another by the operation or handling of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
940.09(1)(am)
(am) Causes the death of another by the operation or handling of a vehicle while the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
940.09(1)(b)
(b) Causes the death of another by the operation or handling of a vehicle while the person has a prohibited alcohol concentration, as defined in s.
340.01 (46m).
940.09(1)(bm)
(bm) Causes the death of another by the operation of a commercial motor vehicle while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more but less than 0.08.
940.09(1)(c)
(c) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
940.09(1)(cm)
(cm) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a vehicle while the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
940.09(1)(d)
(d) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a vehicle while the person has a prohibited alcohol concentration, as defined in s.
340.01 (46m).
940.09(1)(e)
(e) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation of a commercial motor vehicle while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more but less than 0.08.
940.09(1c)(a)(a) Except as provided in par.
(b), a person who violates sub.
(1) is guilty of a Class D felony.
940.09(1c)(b)
(b) A person who violates sub.
(1) is guilty of a Class C felony if the person has one or more prior convictions, suspensions, or revocations, as counted under s.
343.307 (2).
940.09(1d)
(1d) A person who violates sub.
(1) is subject to the requirements and procedures for installation of an ignition interlock device under s.
343.301.
940.09(1g)
(1g) Any person who does any of the following is guilty of a Class D felony:
940.09(1g)(a)
(a) Causes the death of another by the operation or handling of a firearm or airgun while under the influence of an intoxicant.
940.09(1g)(am)
(am) Causes the death of another by the operation or handling of a firearm or airgun while the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
940.09(1g)(b)
(b) Causes the death of another by the operation or handling of a firearm or airgun while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
940.09(1g)(c)
(c) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a firearm or airgun while under the influence of an intoxicant.
940.09(1g)(cm)
(cm) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a firearm or airgun while the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
940.09(1g)(d)
(d) Causes the death of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a firearm or airgun while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
940.09(1m)(a)(a) A person may be charged with and a prosecutor may proceed upon an information based upon a violation of any combination of sub.
(1) (a),
(am), or
(b); any combination of sub.
(1) (a),
(am), or
(bm); any combination of sub.
(1) (c),
(cm), or
(d); any combination of sub.
(1) (c),
(cm), or
(e); any combination of sub.
(1g) (a),
(am), or
(b); or any combination of sub.
(1g) (c),
(cm), or
(d) for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence.
940.09(1m)(b)
(b) If a person is charged in an information with any of the combinations of crimes referred to in par.
(a), the crimes shall be joined under s.
971.12. If the person is found guilty of more than one of the crimes so charged for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for purposes of sentencing and for purposes of counting convictions under s.
23.33 (13) (b) 2. and
3., under s.
23.335 (23) (c) 2. and
3., under s.
30.80 (6) (a) 2. and
3., under s.
343.307 (1) or under s.
350.11 (3) (a) 2. and
3. Subsection
(1) (a),
(am),
(b),
(bm),
(c),
(cm),
(d), and
(e) each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require, and sub.
(1g) (a),
(am),
(b),
(c),
(cm), and
(d) each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require.
940.09(2)(a)(a) In any action under this section, the defendant has a defense if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the death would have occurred even if he or she had been exercising due care and he or she had not been under the influence of an intoxicant, did not have a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, or did not have an alcohol concentration described under sub.
(1) (b),
(bm),
(d) or
(e) or
(1g) (b) or
(d).
940.09(2)(b)
(b) In any action under sub.
(1) (am) or
(cm) or
(1g) (am) or
(cm) that is based on the defendant allegedly having a detectable amount of methamphetamine or gamma-hydroxybutyric acid or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his or her blood, the defendant has a defense if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the incident or occurrence he or she had a valid prescription for methamphetamine or one of its metabolic precursors or gamma-hydroxybutyric acid or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.
940.09 History
History: 1977 c. 173;
1981 c. 20,
184,
314,
391;
1983 a. 459;
1985 a. 331;
1987 a. 399;
1989 a. 105,
275,
359;
1991 a. 32,
277;
1993 a. 317;
1995 a. 425,
436;
1997 a. 237,
295,
338;
1999 a. 32,
109;
2001 a. 16,
109;
2003 a. 30,
97;
2009 a. 100;
2015 a. 170;
2015 a. 197 s.
51.
940.09 Annotation
Probable cause for arrest on a charge of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle justified taking a blood sample without a search warrant or arrest. State v. Bentley,
92 Wis. 2d 860,
286 N.W.2d 153 (Ct. App. 1979).
940.09 Annotation
Each death caused by an intoxicated operator's negligence is chargeable as a separate offense. State v. Rabe,
96 Wis. 2d 48,
291 N.W.2d 809 (1980).
940.09 Annotation
Because driving while intoxicated is inherently dangerous, the state need not prove a causal connection between the driver's intoxication and the victim's death. Sub. (2) does not violate the right against self-incrimination. State v. Caibaiosai,
122 Wis. 2d 587,
363 N.W.2d 574 (1985).
940.09 Annotation
The definition of vehicle in s. 939.22 (44) applies to this section and includes a tractor. State v. Sohn,
193 Wis. 2d 346,
535 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1995).
940.09 Annotation
The defense under sub. (2) does not require an intervening cause; a victim's conduct can be the basis of the defense. The s. 939.14 rule that contributory negligence is not a defense to a crime does not prevent considering the victim's negligence in relation to causation. State v. Lohmeier,
205 Wis. 2d 183,
556 N.W.2d 90 (1996),
94-2187.
940.09 Annotation
Second-degree reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. State v. Lechner,
217 Wis. 2d 392,
576 N.W.2d 912 (1998),
96-2830.
940.09 Annotation
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is prospectively abrogated. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249,
661 N.W.2d 381,
01-3063.
940.09 Annotation
Defendant's conviction under sub. (1) (c) for causing the death of an unborn child was not unconstitutional. The court rejected the assertion that s. 939.75 (2) (b) 3. denies equal protection of the law because a pregnant woman can perform acts that cause the death of her unborn child without criminal liability while others are not similarly exempt for acts causing the death of the same unborn child. Because neither the defendant in this case nor anyone else is similarly situated to a pregnant woman who engages in conduct that causes the death of or harm to the unborn child within the pregnant woman, there is no equal protection violation. State v. Benson,
2012 WI App 101,
344 Wis. 2d 126,
822 N.W.2d 484,
11-1399.
940.09 Annotation
When a blood test reveals the presence of a restricted controlled substance, homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle is a type of strict liability offense; the state only need prove that the restricted controlled substance was present and the defendant caused the death of another by using a motor vehicle. Though generally structured as a strict liability offense, sub. (2) (a) provides a defense for when there is an intervening cause between the intoxicated operation of the automobile and the death of an individual. A seizure can, as a general matter, be a defense to the charge. State v. Raczka,
2018 WI App 3,
379 Wis. 2d 720,
906 N.W.2d 722,
16-1057.
940.09 Annotation
In this case, the defendant had a history of seizures and failed to take his seizure medication as prescribed. If failing to take the medication was negligent and this negligence caused the seizure and the crash, then the statute offers no defense. However, whether the defendant's failure to take his medication was a failure to exercise due care is a question of fact; it cannot be presumed as a matter of law. State v. Raczka,
2018 WI App 3,
379 Wis. 2d 720,
906 N.W.2d 722,
16-1057.
940.09 AnnotationThis statute does not violate due process. Caibaiosai v. Barrington,
643 F. Supp. 1007 (W. D. Wis. 1986).
940.09 Annotation
Homicide By Intoxicated Use Statute. Sines. Wis. Law. April, 1995.
940.10
940.10
Homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. 940.10(1)(1)
Whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class G felony.
940.10(2)
(2) Whoever causes the death of an unborn child by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class G felony.
940.10 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1988 Homicide by negligent operation of vehicle is analogous to prior s. 940.08. The mental element is criminal negligence as defined in s. 939.25. [Bill 191-S]
940.10 Annotation
A motorist was properly convicted under this section for running a red light at 50 m.p.h., even though the speed limit was 55 m.p.h. State v. Cooper,
117 Wis. 2d 30,
344 N.W.2d 194 (Ct. App. 1983).
940.10 Annotation
The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman,
183 Wis. 2d 180,
515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).
940.10 Annotation
It is not a requirement for finding criminal negligence that the actor be specifically warned that his or her conduct may result in harm. State v. Johannes,
229 Wis. 2d 215,
598 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-2239.
940.10 Annotation
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte,
2003 WI 42,
261 Wis. 2d 249,
661 N.W.2d 381,
01-3063.
940.11
940.11
Mutilating or hiding a corpse. 940.11(1)(1)
Whoever mutilates, disfigures or dismembers a corpse, with intent to conceal a crime or avoid apprehension, prosecution or conviction for a crime, is guilty of a Class F felony.
940.11(2)
(2) Whoever hides or buries a corpse, with intent to conceal a crime or avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction for a crime or notwithstanding s.
946.90 (2) or
(3),
946.91 (2),
946.92, or
946.93 (2) or
(3) with intent to collect benefits under the assistance program for families with dependent children administered under ss.
49.141 to
49.161, the Medical Assistance program administered under subch.
IV of ch. 49, or the food stamp program, as defined in s.
49.79 (1) (c), is guilty of a Class F felony.
940.11(3)
(3) A person may not be subject to prosecution under both this section and s.
946.47 or under both this section and s.
948.23 (2) for his or her acts regarding the same corpse.
940.11 Annotation
Evidence that the defendant dragged a corpse behind a locked gate into a restricted, secluded wildlife area, then rolled the corpse into water at the bottom of a ditch was sufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant hid a corpse in violation of this section. State v. Badker,
2001 WI App 27,
240 Wis. 2d 460,
623 N.W.2d 142,
99-2943.
940.12
940.12
Assisting suicide. Whoever with intent that another take his or her own life assists such person to commit suicide is guilty of a Class H felony.
940.12 History
History: 1977 c. 173;
2001 a. 109.
940.13
940.13
Abortion exception. No fine or imprisonment may be imposed or enforced against and no prosecution may be brought against a woman who obtains an abortion or otherwise violates any provision of any abortion statute with respect to her unborn child or fetus, and s.
939.05,
939.30 or
939.31 does not apply to a woman who obtains an abortion or otherwise violates any provision of any abortion statute with respect to her unborn child or fetus.
940.13 History
History: 1985 a. 56.
940.15(1)(1)
In this section, “viability" means that stage of fetal development when, in the medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular facts of the case before him or her, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.
940.15(2)
(2) Whoever intentionally performs an abortion after the fetus or unborn child reaches viability, as determined by reasonable medical judgment of the woman's attending physician, is guilty of a Class I felony.
