948.07 AnnotationLike the child enticement statute in Robins, 2002 WI 65, the child sexual assault statute regulates conduct, not speech. An attempt to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a child initiated or carried out in part by means of language does not make an attempted child sexual assault charge susceptible of scrutiny under the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State v. Brienzo, 2003 WI App 203, 267 Wis. 2d 349, 671 N.W.2d 700, 01-1362.

948.07 AnnotationThis section requires only that the defendant cause the child to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with the intent to engage in illicit conduct, but not that the child necessarily be first separated from the public. State v. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, 272 Wis. 2d 837, 681 N.W.2d 272, 03-1710.

948.07 Annotation“Secluded” in this section is not a technical term. In the context of child enticement, a secluded place would include any place that provides the enticer an opportunity to remove the child from within the general public’s view to a location where any intended sexual conduct is less likely to be detected by the public. A place need not even be screened or hidden or remote if some other aspect of the place lowers the likelihood of detection. All the statute requires is that the place provides a means by which to exclude the child and reduce the risk of detection. State v. Pask, 2010 WI App 53, 324 Wis. 2d 555, 781 N.W.2d 751, 09-0559.

948.07 AnnotationSexual contact is not an element of the crime of child enticement under this section. Rather, the six enumerated prohibited intents are modes of commission. At least one mode of commission must be referenced during a plea colloquy, but the terms comprising each mode need not be specifically defined. The crime of child enticement does not require proof of the actual, physical action contemplated by the mode of commission, only that the defendant acted to entice a child while intending to do one of the prohibited acts. The act of enticement is the crime, not the underlying intended sexual or other misconduct. State v. Hendricks, 2018 WI 15, 379 Wis. 2d 549, 906 N.W.2d 666, 15-2429.

948.075(1r)(1r) Whoever uses a computerized communication system to communicate with an individual who the actor believes or has reason to believe has not attained the age of 16 years with intent to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the individual in violation of s. 948.02 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class C felony.

948.075(2)(2) This section does not apply if, at the time of the communication, the actor reasonably believed that the age of the person to whom the communication was sent was no more than 24 months less than the age of the actor.

948.075(3)(3) Proof that the actor did an act, other than use a computerized communication system to communicate with the individual, to effect the actor’s intent under sub. (1r) shall be necessary to prove that intent.

948.075 AnnotationThe defendant’s admission to driving to the alleged victim’s neighborhood for an innocent purpose combined with computer communications, in which the defendant told the alleged victim that he drove through her neighborhood for the specific purpose of meeting her, and his confession to the police that he went to the area so he could “get her interested in chatting with him again,” showed that the non-computer-assisted act of driving through the area was to effect his intent to have sex with the alleged victim and satisfied the requirement in sub. (3). State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263, 298 Wis. 2d 155, 726 N.W.2d 706, 06-0283.

948.075 AnnotationThe defendant’s use of a webcam to transmit video of himself was, under the circumstances of this case, nothing more than the use of the defendant’s computer to communicate and thus not an act “other than us[ing] a computerized communication system to communicate” as required under sub. (3). State v. Olson, 2008 WI App 171, 314 Wis. 2d 630, 762 N.W.2d 393, 08-0587.

948.075 AnnotationThe element use of a “computerized communication system” in sub. (1r) was satisfied when the defendant used a flip-style cellphone to exchange texts with, and receive picture messages from, the 14-year-old victim. There is no doubt that modern cellphones today are in fact computers. The defendant used the defendant’s cellphone as a computer to send communications to the victim over the computer system used by their cellphones so that the defendant could have sexual contact with the victim. State v. McKellips, 2016 WI 51, 369 Wis. 2d 437, 881 N.W.2d 258, 14-0827.

948.075 AnnotationThis section is not unconstitutionally vague because a person of ordinary intelligence would understand that using a cellphone to text or picture message with a child to entice sexual encounters violates the statute, and this section is capable of objective enforcement. State v. McKellips, 2016 WI 51, 369 Wis. 2d 437, 881 N.W.2d 258, 14-0827.

948.075 AnnotationThe legislature had reasonable and practical grounds for making a conviction for using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime under sub. (1r) subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. Thus, there was a rational basis for the penalty enhancer in s. 939.617 (1), and it was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. State v. Heidke, 2016 WI App 55, 370 Wis. 2d 771, 883 N.W.2d 162, 15-1420.

948.08948.08 Soliciting a child for prostitution. Whoever intentionally solicits or causes any child to engage in an act of prostitution or establishes any child in a place of prostitution is guilty of a Class D felony.

948.08 AnnotationAlthough colloquially referred to as prohibiting solicitation, this section also specifically, and alternatively, prohibits causing a child to practice prostitution. Cause is a substantial factor that need not be the first or sole cause of a child practicing prostitution. The habitual nature of the defendant’s trading cocaine for sex with the child victim satisfied the requisite that the victim did “practice prostitution” with the defendant. State v. Payette, 2008 WI App 106, 313 Wis. 2d 39, 756 N.W.2d 423, 07-1192.

948.081948.081 Patronizing a child. An actor who enters or remains in any place of prostitution with intent to have nonmarital sexual intercourse or to commit an act of sexual gratification, in public or in private, involving the sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another, masturbation, or sexual contact with a person is guilty of a Class G felony if the person is a child. In a prosecution under this section, it need not be proven that the actor knew the age of the person and it is not a defense that the actor reasonably believed that the person was not a child.

948.085(2)(2) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a child who is placed in any of the following facilities if the actor works or volunteers at the facility or is directly or indirectly responsible for managing it:

948.09948.09 Sexual intercourse with a child age 16 or older. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child who is not the defendant’s spouse and who has attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the defendant has attained the age of 19 years when the violation occurs.

948.093948.093 Underage sexual activity. Whoever has sexual contact with a child who has attained the age of 15 years but has not attained the age of 16 years, or whoever has sexual intercourse with a child who has attained the age of 15 years, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has not attained the age of 19 years when the violation occurs. This section does not apply if the actor is the child’s spouse.