939.23(1)(1) When criminal intent is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951, such intent is indicated by the term “intentionally”, the phrase “with intent to”, the phrase “with intent that”, or some form of the verbs “know” or “believe”.

939.23(3)(3) “Intentionally” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result. In addition, except as provided in sub. (6), the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make his or her conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word “intentionally”.

939.23(4)(4) “With intent to” or “with intent that” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result.

939.23(5)(5) Criminal intent does not require proof of knowledge of the existence or constitutionality of the section under which the actor is prosecuted or the scope or meaning of the terms used in that section.

939.23 AnnotationA person need not foresee or intend the specific consequences of an act in order to possess the requisite criminal intent and is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of the act. State v. Gould, 56 Wis. 2d 808, 202 N.W.2d 903 (1973).

939.23 AnnotationInstructions on intent to kill created a permissible rebuttable presumption that shifted the burden of production to the defendant, but not the burden of persuasion. Muller v. State, 94 Wis. 2d 450, 289 N.W.2d 570 (1980).

939.23 AnnotationThe court properly refused to instruct the jury on a “mistake of fact” defense when the accused claimed that the victim moved into the path of a gunshot intended only to frighten the victim. State v. Bougneit, 97 Wis. 2d 687, 294 N.W.2d 675 (Ct. App. 1980).

939.23 AnnotationThe constitutionality of sub. (3) is upheld. State v. Smith, 170 Wis. 2d 701, 490 N.W.2d 40 (Ct. App. 1992).

939.23 AnnotationThe trial court’s wholesale exclusion of the defendant’s proffered expert and lay testimony regarding posttraumatic stress disorder from the guilt phase of a murder trial without valid justification violated the defendant’s right to present a defense and to testify on her own behalf. Morgan v. Krenke, 72 F. Supp. 2d 980 (1999).

939.24(1)(1) In this section, “criminal recklessness” means that the actor creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human being and the actor is aware of that risk, except that for purposes of ss. 940.02 (1m), 940.06 (2) and 940.23 (1) (b) and (2) (b), “criminal recklessness” means that the actor creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to an unborn child, to the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or to another and the actor is aware of that risk.

939.24(2)(2) Except as provided in ss. 940.285, 940.29, 940.295, and 943.76, if criminal recklessness is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951, the recklessness is indicated by the term “reckless” or “recklessly”.

939.24 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal recklessness, the culpable mental state of numerous offenses. Recklessness 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.

939.24 NoteSub. (3) continues the present rule that a voluntarily produced intoxicated or drugged condition is not a defense to liability for criminal recklessness. Ameen v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 175, 185 (1971). Patterned on s. 2.08 of the model penal code, it premises liability on whether the actor would have been aware if not in such condition of the risk of death or great bodily harm. The commentaries to s. 2.08, model penal code, state the rationale of this rule in extended fashion. [Bill 191-S]

939.24 AnnotationThere is no crime of “attempted homicide by reckless conduct” since the completed offense does not require intent while any attempt must demonstrate intent. State v. Melvin, 49 Wis. 2d 246, 181 N.W.2d 490 (1970).

939.24 AnnotationFelony murder is committed when the death of another person is caused by a defendant during the commission of certain crimes, including burglary. The elements of burglary include the intent to either steal or to commit a felony. The evidence demonstrated that the defendant in this case forced his way into a building and started shooting with two guns, which was indicative of an intent to recklessly endanger the safety of those inside—a felony. Therefore, the defendant was convicted of a valid crime. State v. Mays, 2022 WI App 24, 402 Wis. 2d 162, 975 N.W.2d 649, 21-0765.

939.24 AnnotationWith respect to first-degree reckless injury under s. 940.23 (1) (a), a successful assertion of self-defense under s. 939.48 (1) negates an element of the crime, rendering self-defense a negative defense rather than an affirmative defense. Because, under sub. (1), the “criminally reckless conduct” element of reckless injury requires proof that the defendant has created an “unreasonable” and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another person, proof that the defendant reasonably believed that the other person posed a risk of death or great bodily harm to himself and that the use of force was necessary to eliminate that risk will necessarily preclude a finding that the defendant’s use of force was unreasonable and criminally reckless. Once a defendant establishes the existence of a statutory affirmative defense, Wisconsin law imposes on the state the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown v. Eplett, 48 F.4th 543 (2022).

939.24 AnnotationDue Process and the Voluntary Intoxication Defense. Larson. Wis. Law. Feb. 2019.

939.25(1)(1) In this section, “criminal negligence” means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, except that for purposes of ss. 940.08 (2), 940.10 (2) and 940.24 (2), “criminal negligence” means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to an unborn child, to the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or to another.