961.41 AnnotationA delivery conspiracy under sub. (1x) requires an agreement between a buyer and a seller that the buyer will deliver at least some of the controlled substance to a third party. State v. Cavallari, 214 Wis. 2d 42, 571 N.W.2d 176 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3391.

961.41 AnnotationStanding alone, the presence of drugs in someone’s system is insufficient to support a conviction for possession, but it is circumstantial evidence of prior possession. Evidence that the defendant was selling drugs is irrelevant to a charge of simple possession. Evidence that the defendant had money but no job does not have a tendency to prove possession. State v. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0914.

961.41 AnnotationDelivery under sub. (1m) requires a transfer from one person to another. Intent to transfer drugs to the person from whom they were originally received satisfies this definition. Transfer to a third party is not required. State v. Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226, 287 Wis. 2d 592, 706 N.W.2d 157, 04-2755.

961.41 AnnotationA person may be a member of a conspiracy, in particular, a conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance, based on the person’s sale of goods that are not illegal to sell or possess. One does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting it, through sales of supplies or otherwise, unless the person knows of the conspiracy, the inference of which knowledge cannot be drawn from mere knowledge that the buyer will use the goods illegally. The gist of the conspiracy is the seller’s intent, when given effect by an overt act to further, promote, and cooperate in the buyer’s intended illegal use. There must be clear, unequivocal evidence of the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s intended illegal use. State v. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, 304 Wis. 2d 480, 736 N.W.2d 530, 06-2557.

961.41 AnnotationPossession requires evidence that the individual had a substance in the individual’s control. When combined with other corroborating evidence of sufficient probative value, evidence of ingestion can be sufficient to prove possession. State v. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161, 321 Wis. 2d 752, 776 N.W.2d 602, 08-1968.

961.41 AnnotationSub. (3g) (c) requires that the prior conviction be connected to controlled substances if a prior conviction is to trigger penalty enhancement. When the statute underlying a prior conviction presents alternative methods of violating the statute, it is appropriate to consult a limited class of documents to determine what statutory alternative formed the basis for the defendant’s prior conviction. A trial court judge, rather than a jury, is allowed to determine the applicability of a defendant’s prior conviction for sentence enhancement purposes, when the necessary information concerning the prior conviction can be readily determined from an existing judicial record. State v. Guarnero, 2015 WI 72, 363 Wis. 2d 857, 867 N.W.2d 400, 13-1753.

961.41 AnnotationArrest did not terminate possession or control of a controlled substance. State v. Brantner, 2020 WI 21, 390 Wis. 2d 494, 939 N.W.2d 546, 18-0053.

961.41 AnnotationMultiple charges for possession based on different dosages were multiplicitous under sub. (3g) (am) because that subsection proscribes possession without regard to the dosage of the pills. State v. Brantner, 2020 WI 21, 390 Wis. 2d 494, 939 N.W.2d 546, 18-0053.

961.41 AnnotationThere is no minimum quantity of a controlled substance necessary to sustain a conviction for possession. However, possession of a controlled substance requires both knowledge and control. Thus, the state must prove the defendant knew or believed that the defendant was in possession of a narcotic drug. Such knowledge or belief may be shown circumstantially by conduct, directly by admission, or indirectly by contradictory statements from which guilt may be inferred. State v. Chentis, 2022 WI App 4, 400 Wis. 2d 441, 969 N.W.2d 482, 20-1699.

961.41 AnnotationDouble jeopardy was not violated when the defendant was convicted of separate offenses under s. 161.41 [now this section] for simultaneous delivery of different controlled substances. Leonard v. Warden, Dodge Correctional Institution, 631 F. Supp. 1403 (1986).

961.42(1)(1) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure or place, which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for manufacturing, keeping or delivering them in violation of this chapter.

961.42 Annotation“Keeping” a substance under sub. (1) means more than simple possession; it means keeping for the purpose of warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery. State v. Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349, 369 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1985).

961.42 AnnotationWarehousing or storage under Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349 (1985), does not encompass merely possessing an item while transporting it. Cocaine was not warehoused or stored when the cocaine was carried in the defendant’s truck while moving from one location to another. State v. Slagle, 2007 WI App 117, 300 Wis. 2d 662, 731 N.W.2d 284, 06-0775.

961.43(1)(b)(b) Without authorization, to make, distribute or possess any punch, die, plate, stone or other thing designed to print, imprint or reproduce the trademark, trade name or other identifying mark, imprint or device of another or any likeness of any of the foregoing upon any drug or container or labeling thereof so as:

961.44961.44 Penalties under other laws. Any penalty imposed for violation of this chapter is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any civil or administrative penalty or sanction otherwise authorized by law.

961.442961.442 Penalties; hemp. If a person attempts to conceal the commission of a crime under this chapter while representing that he or she is engaging in the planting, growing, cultivating, harvesting, producing, processing, transporting, importing, exporting, selling, transferring, sampling, testing, or taking possession of hemp, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for that crime may be increased as follows: