Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 938.263 (2026)
Amendment of petition
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
938.263(1)(1) To cure defect. Except as provided in s. 938.255 (3), no petition, process or other proceeding may be dismissed or reversed for any error or mistake if the case and the identity of the juvenile named in the petition may be readily understood by the court; and the court may order an amendment curing the defects.
938.263(2)(2) Before or after plea. With reasonable notification to the interested parties and prior to the taking of a plea under s. 938.30, the petition may be amended at the discretion of the court or person who filed the petition. After the taking of a plea, the court may allow amendment of the petition to conform to the proof if the amendment is not prejudicial to the juvenile.
938.263 AnnotationSub. (2) did not authorize the trial court to sua sponte and without notice amend a juvenile petition charge to disorderly conduct and make a finding of guilt thereon after finding the juvenile not guilty of battery. The court’s action unfairly prejudiced the juvenile’s statutory and due process rights. State v. Tawanna H., 223 Wis. 2d 572, 590 N.W.2d 276 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-1404.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1998–2004 · leading case: State v. Vairin M., 2002 WI 96 (Wis. 2002).
State v. Vairin M., 2002 WI 96 (Wis. 2002). “Defense counsel asserted that the court had the authority to amend the petition, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 938.263 . She also asserted that Vairin would be willing to plead guilty or no contest to arson and to agree to the serious juvenile offender program, affording the juvenile…”
State v. Tawanna H., 590 N.W.2d 276 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Tawanna claims the trial court violated § 938.263(2), Stats., and her rights to procedural due process.”
State v. McClelland, 680 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “] § 938.263 ... and prejudicial as her due process rights were violated.”
— Wis. Stat. § 938.263(2) — 1 case
State v. Tawanna H., 590 N.W.2d 276 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Tawanna claims the trial court violated § 938.263(2), Stats., and her rights to procedural due process.”
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.