Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (2026)
Criminal recklessness
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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 HistoryHistory: 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 56 s. 259; 1993 a. 445; 1997 a. 295; 2001 a. 109; 2013 a. 307.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013).
State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013). “¶40 "Recklessly" is defined in Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (1) to mean 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 .”
Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand, 2023 WI 6 (Wis. 2023). “" Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (1). ¶28 Accordingly, in a prosecution for second-degree reckless homicide, the State has the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that two elements were present.”
State v. Head, 2002 WI 99 (Wis. 2002). “23 ]; (2) The mental element is aggravated recklessness when the actor is aware that the conduct creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life [ Wis. Stat. §§ 939.24 , 940.02];…”
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). “11 (2011) ("unreasonable risk and probability of death or great bodily harm"); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.24 (1) (2016) ("unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm").”
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). “2d 560 ("The word 'recklessly' is defined differently in the second-degree reckless homicide statute ( Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (1)) and in the criminal child abuse statute § 948.”
State v. Blair, 473 N.W.2d 566 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “" Judicial Council Committee Note, 1988, sec. 939.24, Stats. There are thus four ultimate elements to the crime of first-degree reckless homicide: 1.”
State v. Williams, 2006 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “” He also points to the Wisconsin Jury Instructions on recklessly causing harm to a child, which instruct the jury to "consider all the factors relating to the conduct.”
State v. Below, 2011 WI App 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (1). Thus, the recklessness element 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.”
State v. Lechner, 576 N.W.2d 912 (Wis. 1998). “10 "Criminal recklessness" is defined in Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (1): "[T]he 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.”
State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “" Wis. Stat. § 939.24 (1) (1997-98). If the jury believed that Gribble inflicted Meggie's injuries, that is evidence that relates to a fact of consequence— Gribble's awareness of the type of conduct that could cause great bodily harm to an infant.”
State v. Jensen, 2000 WI 84 (Wis. 2000). “Judicial Council Committee Note, 1988, § 939.24, Stats. ¶ 16. Jensen contends that utter disregard is essentially a part of the subjective mental state — the mens rea — of this crime, which must be proven on the basis of a subjective standard.”
State v. Edmunds, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “2d at 569 (quoting Judicial Council Committee Note, 1988, § 939.24). The element of utter disregard was first enacted in 1988, effective January 1, 1989.”
— Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1) — 12 cases
State v. Blair, 473 N.W.2d 566 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “" Judicial Council Committee Note, 1988, sec. 939.24, Stats. There are thus four ultimate elements to the crime of first-degree reckless homicide: 1.”
George Brown v. Cheryl Eplett, 48 F.4th 543 (7th Cir. 2022).
State v. Edmunds, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “2d at 569 (quoting Judicial Council Committee Note, 1988, § 939.24). The element of utter disregard was first enacted in 1988, effective January 1, 1989.”
John S. Bergmann v. Gary McCaughtry, 65 F.3d 1372 (7th Cir. 1995).
Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand, 2021 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.24(2) — 3 cases
State v. Blair, 473 N.W.2d 566 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “" Judicial Council Committee Note, 1988, sec. 939.24, Stats. There are thus four ultimate elements to the crime of first-degree reckless homicide: 1.”
State v. Hemphill, 2006 WI App 185 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Gregory L. Rollins (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
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.