Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 29 — WILD ANIMALS AND PLANTS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 29.951 (2026)

Resisting a warden

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
29.95129.951 Resisting a warden. Any person who assaults or otherwise resists or obstructs any warden in the performance of duty shall be subject to the penalty specified in s. 939.51 (3) (a).
29.951 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 365, 421; 1979 c. 34; 1981 c. 20; 1993 a. 137; 1997 a. 248 s. 683; Stats. 1997 s. 29.951.
29.951 AnnotationThis section defines one crime with multiple modes of commission and comports with the applicable fundamental fairness standard embodied in the due process clause. Jury unanimity as to the manner in which a defendant violates this section is not required. Failure to specify the manner of violation did not deny the defendant the due process right to a unanimous jury verdict. State v. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, 313 Wis. 2d 767, 758 N.W.2d 463, 07-1894.
29.951 AnnotationAffirmed on other grounds. 2010 WI 84, 327 Wis. 2d 252, 786 N.W.2d 97, 07-1894.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2010 · leading case: State v. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 54× “David Dearborn appeals a judgment of conviction for assaulting or otherwise obstructing, or resisting a conservation warden contrary to Wis. Stat. § 29.951 (2005-06) 2 and for possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) contrary to Wis.”
State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 5× “Dearborn was convicted of assaulting or otherwise obstructing, or resisting a conservation warden in violation of Wis. Stat. § 29.951 (2005-06), and for possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in violation of Wis.”
State v. Warrichaiet, 695 N.W.2d 903 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 29.951, for knocking the camera and causing Goerlinger to halt his investigation into Peters' assault.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.