Menu

946.49 946.49 Bail jumping.

946.49(1) (1) Whoever, having been released from custody under ch. 969, intentionally fails to comply with the terms of his or her bond is:

946.49(1)(a) (a) If the offense with which the person is charged is a misdemeanor, guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

946.49(1)(b) (b) If the offense with which the person is charged is a felony, guilty of a Class H felony.

946.49(2) (2) A witness for whom bail has been required under s. 969.01 (3) is guilty of a Class I felony for failure to appear as provided.

946.49 History History: 1977 c. 173; 2001 a. 109.

946.49 Annotation Under sub. (1), a charge underlying a bail-jumping charge is not a lesser-included offense, and punishment for both does not offend double-jeopardy protection. State v. Nelson, 146 Wis. 2d 442, 432 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1988).

946.49 Annotation Conviction under this section resulting from the conviction for another crime committed while released on bail does not constitute double jeopardy. State v. West, 181 Wis. 2d 792, 512 N.W.2d 207 (Ct. App. 1993).

946.49 Annotation Before a defendant may be convicted of bail jumping under sub. (1), the state must prove three elements: 1) that the defendant was either arrested for, or charged with, a felony or misdemeanor; 2) that the defendant was released from custody on a bond, under conditions established by the trial court; and 3) that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with the terms of the bond, that is, that the defendant knew of the terms of the bond and knew that the defendant’s actions did not comply with those terms. In this case, the defendant was released from custody without bail, and the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant executed either a secured or unsecured bond before release. Thus, there was insufficient evidence to support two elements of the charged offense of bail jumping. State v. Dawson, 195 Wis. 2d 161, 536 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2570.

946.49 Annotation A court in sentencing a defendant for a violation of this section may take into account the underlying acts that resulted in the violation. State v. Schordie, 214 Wis. 2d 229, 570 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0071.

946.49 Annotation Charging a defendant with two counts of bail jumping when the defendant violated multiple conditions of a single bond was not multiplicitous. State v. Anderson, 219 Wis. 2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), 96-0087.

946.49 Annotation A positive urine test was sufficient to establish that the defendant intentionally violated the conditions of a bond prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. State v. Taylor, 226 Wis. 2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0962.

946.49 Annotation When the meaning and scope of a bond condition is at issue for purposes of determining whether there is the basis for a criminal charge, the threshold question is whether the bond condition itself covers the defendant’s conduct in the case, and not whether the evidence plausibly establishes that the defendant believed that the defendant was violating the condition. State v. Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, 238 Wis. 2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872, 99-2203.

946.49 Annotation When a bail jumping charge is premised upon the commission of a further crime, the jury must be properly instructed regarding the elements of that further crime. When a bail jumping charge is premised upon the commission of a lesser-included offense of the further crime, the jury must be properly instructed under the law of lesser-included offenses. State v. Henning, 2003 WI App 54, 261 Wis. 2d 664, 660 N.W.2d 698, 02-1287.

946.49 Annotation Reversed on other grounds. 2004 WI 89, 273 Wis. 2d 352, 681 N.W.2d 871, 02-1287.

946.49 Annotation “Release” refers to the defendant posting the bond, be it signature or cash, and need not be accompanied by the defendant’s physical departure from the jailhouse. In this case, the defendant made bond on a signature bond by signing it, therefore committing himself to its conditions, although the defendant did not post two required cash bonds. While not physically released, the defendant was subject to this section for violating the conditions of the signature bond. State v. Dewitt, 2008 WI App 134, 313 Wis. 2d 794, 758 N.W.2d 201, 07-2869.

946.49 Annotation The defendant’s argument that conviction on two bail-jumping counts was multiplicitous because the preliminary hearings at which the defendant failed to appear were scheduled for the same time and the defendant had signed only one bond for the two underlying cases failed because the counts were different in fact. Proof of notification and failure to appear in one case would not prove notification and failure to appear in the other, making the two charges different in nature and therefore different in fact. State v. Eaglefeathers, 2009 WI App 2, 316 Wis. 2d 152, 762 N.W.2d 690, 07-0845.

946.49 Annotation There is a two-step test to determine when, after being released from custody under ch. 969, a defendant no longer meets the definition of “having been released”: 1) the defendant must be placed in physical custody on the bond at issue; and 2) there must be some court action regarding the bond under which the defendant was previously released. Court action sufficient to meet the second requirement includes the issuance of a bench warrant, the revocation of bond, or the modification of bond such that a defendant cannot obtain release. State v. Jacobs, 2023 WI App 53, 409 Wis. 2d 467, 997 N.W.2d 130, 22-0658.

946.49 Annotation The Use of Wisconsin’s Bail Jumping Statute: A Legal and Quantitative Analysis. Johnson. 2018 WLR 619.