943.32 AnnotationTheft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Both require asportation. Moore v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 1, 197 N.W.2d 820 (1972).

943.32 AnnotationTaking a pouch from the victim by force and in such a manner as to overcome any physical resistance or power of resistance constituted robbery and not theft under s. 943.20. Walton v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 36, 218 N.W.2d 309 (1974).

943.32 AnnotationWhen a victim testified that the defendant’s accomplice held an object to his throat while the defendant took money from his person and the defendant testified that no robbery whatsoever occurred, the jury was presented with no evidence indicating that a robbery absent the threat of force had occurred. It was not error to deny the defendant’s request for an instruction on theft from a person. State v. Powers, 66 Wis. 2d 84, 224 N.W.2d 206 (1974).

943.32 AnnotationWhen a defendant lost money to a dice cheat and thereafter recovered a similar amount at gunpoint, the jury could convict despite the defendant’s claim that the bills recovered were those lost. Austin v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 213, 271 N.W.2d 668 (1978).

943.32 AnnotationSub. (1) states one offense that may be committed by alternate means. The jury was properly instructed in the disjunctive on the force element. Manson v. State, 101 Wis. 2d 413, 304 N.W.2d 729 (1981).

943.32 AnnotationArmed robbery can be the natural and probable consequence of robbery. In such case, an aider and abettor need not have had actual knowledge that the principals would be armed. State v. Ivy, 119 Wis. 2d 591, 350 N.W.2d 622 (1984).

943.32 AnnotationIf the defendant commits a robbery while merely possessing a dangerous weapon, the penalty enhancer under s. 939.63 is applicable. State v. Robinson, 140 Wis. 2d 673, 412 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1987).

943.32 AnnotationA defendant’s lack of intent to make a victim believe that the defendant is armed is irrelevant in finding a violation of sub. (2); if the victim’s belief that the defendant is armed is reasonable, that is enough. State v. Hubanks, 173 Wis. 2d 1, 496 N.W.2d 96 (Ct. App. 1992).

943.32 AnnotationExtortion is not a lesser included offense of robbery. Convictions for both are not precluded. State v. Dauer, 174 Wis. 2d 418, 497 N.W.2d 766 (Ct. App. 1993).

943.32 AnnotationThis section does not require a specific intent that property that is demanded actually be transferred. State v. Voss, 205 Wis. 2d 586, 556 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1183.

943.32 AnnotationAsportation, or carrying away, is an element of robbery. The asportation requirement provides a bright line distinction between attempt and robbery. There is no exception for an automobile that is entered by force, but cannot be moved by the defendant. State v. Johnson, 207 Wis. 2d 239, 558 N.W.2d 375 (1997), 95-0072.

943.32 AnnotationThe key to a conviction under sub. (2) is whether the victim reasonably believed that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon even though the victim did not see anything that was perceived as a weapon. In applying reasonable belief to the armed-robbery statute, courts must consider the circumstances of the individual case. State v. Rittman, 2010 WI App 41, 324 Wis. 2d 273, 781 N.W.2d 545, 09-0708.

943.32 AnnotationThe state’s attempt to retry the defendant for armed robbery, alleging the use of a different weapon after the trial judge concluded that acquittal on a first armed robbery charge resulted from insufficient evidence of the use of a gun, violated double jeopardy protections. It did not necessarily follow that the state was prevented from pursuing a charge of simple robbery however. Losey v. Frank, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (2003).

943.32 AnnotationLetting Armed Robbery Get Away: An Analysis of Wisconsin’s Armed Robbery Statute. Goodstein. 1998 WLR 591.

943.34(1)(1) Except as provided under s. 948.62, whoever knowingly or intentionally receives or conceals stolen property is guilty of:

943.34(1)(bf)(bf) A Class I felony, if the value of the property exceeds $2,500 but does not exceed $5,000.

943.34(1)(bm)(bm) A Class H felony, if the property is a firearm or if the value of the property exceeds $5,000 but does not exceed $10,000.

943.34(2)(2) In any action or proceeding for a violation of sub. (1), a party may use duly identified and authenticated photographs of property which was the subject of the violation in lieu of producing the property.

943.34 AnnotationThe fact that sequentially received stolen property was purchased for a lump sum was an insufficient basis to aggregate the value of the property; the crime of receiving stolen property does not require payment. State v. Spraggin, 71 Wis. 2d 604, 239 N.W.2d 297 (1976).

943.34 AnnotationIf any element of the crime charged occurred in a given county, then that county can be the place of trial. Because the crime of receiving stolen property requires more than two acts, and one of the acts is that the property must be stolen, venue is properly established in the county where that act occurred. State v. Lippold, 2008 WI App 130, 313 Wis. 2d 699, 757 N.W.2d 825, 07-1773.

943.37943.37 Alteration of property identification marks. Whoever does any of the following with intent to prevent the identification of the property involved is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:

943.37(1)(1) Alters or removes any identification mark on any log or other lumber without the consent of the owner; or

943.37(2)(2) Alters or removes any identification mark from any receptacle used by the manufacturer of any beverage; or

943.37(3)(3) Alters or removes any manufacturer’s identification number on personal property or possesses any personal property with knowledge that the manufacturer’s identification number has been removed or altered. Possession of 2 or more similar items of personal property with the manufacturer’s identification number altered or removed is prima facie evidence of knowledge of the alteration or removal and of an intent to prevent identification of the property.

943.37(4)(4) Alters or removes livestock brands, recorded under s. 95.11, from any animal without the owner’s consent, or possesses any livestock with knowledge that the brand has been altered or removed without the owner’s knowledge or consent.