Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 939.31 (2026)
Conspiracy
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
939.31939.31 Conspiracy. Except as provided in ss. 940.43 (4), 940.45 (4) and 961.41 (1x), whoever, with intent that a crime be committed, agrees or combines with another for the purpose of committing that crime may, if one or more of the parties to the conspiracy does an act to effect its object, be fined or imprisoned or both not to exceed the maximum provided for the completed crime; except that for a conspiracy to commit a crime for which the penalty is life imprisonment, the actor is guilty of a Class B felony.
939.31 AnnotationA conspiracy may be unilateral; a person can enter into a conspiracy to accomplish a criminal objective in which only the defendant has a criminal intent. State v. Sample, 215 Wis. 2d 487, 573 N.W.2d 187 (1998), 96-2184.
939.31 AnnotationWhen the object of a conspiracy is the commission of multiple crimes, separate charges and convictions for each intended crime are permissible. State v. Jackson, 2004 WI App 190, 276 Wis. 2d 697, 688 N.W.2d 688, 03-2066.
939.31 AnnotationThere is a distinction between conspiracy as a substantive inchoate crime under this section and conspiracy as a theory of prosecution for a substantive crime under s. 939.05 (2) (c). State v. Jackson, 2005 WI App 104, 281 Wis. 2d 137; 701 N.W.2d 42, 04-1603.
939.31 AnnotationThe agreement to commit a crime that is necessary for a conspiracy may be demonstrated by circumstantial evidence and need not be express; a tacit understanding of a shared goal is sufficient. The intent to commit the crime may be inferred from the person’s conduct. A stake in the venture is not a necessary element of the crime although evidence of a stake in the venture may be persuasive of the degree of the party’s involvement in the crime. State v. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, 304 Wis. 2d 480, 736 N.W.2d 530, 06-2557.
939.31 AnnotationA person may be a member of a conspiracy—in particular, a conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance—based on the person’s sale of goods that are not illegal to sell or possess. One does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting it, through sales of supplies or otherwise, unless the person knows of the conspiracy, the inference of which knowledge cannot be drawn from mere knowledge that the buyer will use the goods illegally. The gist of the conspiracy is the seller’s intent, when given effect by an overt act to further, promote, and cooperate in the buyer’s intended illegal use. There must be clear, unequivocal evidence of the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s intended illegal use. State v. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, 304 Wis. 2d 480, 736 N.W.2d 530, 06-2557.
939.31 AnnotationUnder a unilateral conspiracy, a person who intends to accomplish the objects of the conspiracy is guilty even though the other members of the conspiracy never intended that a crime be committed. This same logic applies to the next step: that is, when the fulfillment of the conspiracy is not only highly unlikely, but is legally impossible. State v. Huff, 2009 WI App 92, 319 Wis. 2d 258, 769 N.W.2d 154, 08-2664.
939.31 AnnotationFor an act to performed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, an overt act must be done toward the commission of the intended crime that must go beyond mere planning and agreement. However, the act need not, by itself, be an unlawful act or an attempt to commit the crime. If there was an act that was a step toward accomplishing the criminal objective, that is sufficient. In this case, the defendant’s act of communicating to a detective that cocaine was available for immediate delivery was such an overt act. State v. Peralta, 2011 WI App 81, 334 Wis. 2d 159, 800 N.W.2d 512, 10-0563.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: State v. Sample, 573 N.W.2d 187 (Wis. 1998).
State v. Sample, 573 N.W.2d 187 (Wis. 1998). “The question certified to this court is whether Wis. Stat. § 939.31 [1] codifies the "unilateral" or only the "bilateral" approach to the inchoate crime of conspiracy.”
State v. Matthew R. Steffes, 2013 WI 53 (Wis. 2013). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 939.31 , 943.20(1)(d), and 943.”
State v. Moffett, 2000 WI 130 (Wis. 2000). “05 (1997-98) 2 and *632 with the crime of conspiracy to commit intentional homicide under Wis. Stat. § 939.31 (1997-98). 3 The circuit court ordered the State to amend its information to charge the defendants with one or the other of the two crimes — but not both.”
State v. West, 571 N.W.2d 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “*476 Both count one and count three charged West with conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, contrary to § 939.31, Stats. Section 939.31 reads, in relevant part: Conspiracy.”
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI App 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Jackson was convicted of two counts of conspiracy (conspiracy to commit arson and conspiracy to commit intentional homicide) under Wis. Stat. § 939.31 and one count of possession of a fire bomb.”
State v. Routon, 2007 WI App 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “The crime that is the subject of the conspiracy need not be committed in order for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 939.31 to occur; rather, the focus is on the intent of the individual defendant.”
State v. Copening, 309 N.W.2d 850 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “4 Copening contends that an information charging a conspiracy under sec. 939.31, Stats., 5 must allege an overt *576 act committed by the defendant in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
State v. Peralta, 2011 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “41 (1x) and under Wis. Stat. § 939.31 , but the substantive definition of conspiracy is found in § 939.”
State v. House, 2007 WI 79 (Wis. 2007). “The application also stated that the defendants had violated state conspiracy and racketeering statutes, including Wis. Stat. §§ 939.31 and 961.41(1x) (conspiracy), and §§ 946.”
State v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Although McAttee fairly argues that the information the police had about Lakesha may have fallen short of establishing her status as one involved in a conspiracy under Wis. Stat. § 939.31 , 3 he offers no argument to *879 counter the trial court's conclusion that Officer Smith's…”
State Ex Rel. Lynch v. Conta, 239 N.W.2d 318 (Wis. 1976). “" [6] See: Sec. 939.31, Stats. [7] See: Sec. 66.77 (4) (g), Stats.”
State v. Lock, 2013 WI App 80 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “72 (2) prohibits convictions of both conspiracy under Wis. Stat. § 939.31 and being a party to a crime that is the objective of the conspiracy; and (2) that the State may prevent conviction of both by dismissing a count before submission to the jury or after the jury verdict.”
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.