Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 940.06 (2026)
Second-degree reckless homicide
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
940.06(1)(1) Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being is guilty of a Class D felony.
940.06 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: Second-degree reckless homicide is analogous to the prior offense of homicide by reckless conduct. The revised statute clearly requires proof of a subjective mental state, i.e., criminal recklessness. See s. 939.24 and the NOTE thereto. [Bill 191-S]
940.06 AnnotationSecond-degree reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998), 96-2830.
940.06 AnnotationThe common law “year-and-a-day rule” that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381, 01-3063.
940.06 AnnotationThe second-degree reckless homicide statute 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. The circuit court’s refusal to instruct the jury about the effect of the parents’ sincere belief in prayer treatment for their child on the subjective awareness element of second-degree reckless homicide did not undermine the parents’ ability to defend themselves. The second-degree reckless homicide statute does not require that the actor be subjectively aware that the actor’s conduct is a cause of the death of the actor’s child. The statute and the jury instructions require only that the actor be subjectively aware that the actor’s conduct created the unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. State v. Neumann, 2013 WI 58, 348 Wis. 2d 455, 832 N.W.2d 560, 11-1044.
940.06 AnnotationThe only difference between first-degree and second-degree reckless homicide is that “utter disregard for human life” is a required element for first-degree, but not second-degree, reckless homicide. In this case, there was evidence that the defendant acted in fear for his own life, not necessarily with utter disregard for the victim’s life. Based on that evidence, the circuit court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide as well as first-degree reckless homicide. State v. Johnson, 2021 WI 61, 397 Wis. 2d 633, 961 N.W.2d 18, 18-2318.
940.06 AnnotationThe Importance of Clarity in the Law of Homicide: The Wisconsin Revision. Dickey, Schultz, & Fullin. 1989 WLR 1323.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013).
State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013). “2011AP1044-CR & 2011AP1105-CR ¶46 In order to compare the four statutes more easily, we insert the defined terms into the text of each statute and reprint the four statutes below: Wis. Stat. § 940.06 (1) Whoever creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or bodily…”
State v. Lechner, 576 N.W.2d 912 (Wis. 1998). “After a plea agreement was reached by the State and Lechner, Lechner ultimately pled no contest to the following offenses: (1) second-degree reckless homicide, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.06 ; (2) homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, in violation of Wis.”
State v. Joseph T. Langlois, 913 N.W.2d 812 (Wis. 2018). “02 (1), and, at trial, sought conviction on any one of three offenses: the offense charged, or either of two lesser-included offenses, second- degree reckless homicide by use of a dangerous weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.06 (1), or homicide by negligent handling of a…”
Gedlen v. Unborn Child. of Safran Ex Rel. Kaiser, 306 N.W.2d 27 (Wis. 1981). “, the principal beneficiary of her will, was convicted on a plea of no contest, of causing her death by reckless conduct in violation of sec. 940.06, Stats. (1975). [1] The principal issues presented on appeal are: 1.”
State v. Serebin, 350 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 1984). “This review concerns a court of appeals opinion [1] reversing a jury verdict finding the defendant, Stephen Serebin, guilty of homicide by reckless conduct, contrary to sec. 940.06, Stats. 1975, and guilty of twelve counts of abuse of inmates of an institution, party to a crime,…”
State v. Raheem Moore, 2015 WI 54 (Wis. 2015). “2 Contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.06 (1) and 939.05. All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007- 08 version unless otherwise indicated.”
Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand, 2023 WI 6 (Wis. 2023). “4 Wis. Stat. § 940.06 (1). 4 No. 2020AP1943 proceedings, and stay liability proceedings.”
State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134 (Wis. 2014). “9 Contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.06 (1). 10 Contrary to Wis.”
State v. Wilson, 440 N.W.2d 534 (Wis. 1989). “The second issue is whether the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of homicide by reckless conduct, sec. 940.06, Stats. 1967. [2] We find that the circuit court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included…”
State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 2014 WI 4 (Wis. 2014). “2011AP2698-CR ¶29 On October 12, 2009, the jury found Jackson guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide while armed, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.06 (1) and 939.63(1), a class D felony.”
State v. Spears, 433 N.W.2d 595 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “His conduct consisted of "an act which creates a situation of unreasonable risk and high probability of death or great bodily harm to another and which demonstrates a conscious disregard for the safety of another and a willingness to take known chances of perpetrating an injury.”
State v. Tramell E. Starks, 2013 WI 69 (Wis. 2013). “§ 940.06 . Starks contended that because he shot Weddle below the waist and expressed distress when he learned Weddle died, he showed at least some regard for Weddle's life.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.06(1) — 16 cases
State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013). “2011AP1044-CR & 2011AP1105-CR ¶46 In order to compare the four statutes more easily, we insert the defined terms into the text of each statute and reprint the four statutes below: Wis. Stat. § 940.06 (1) Whoever creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or bodily…”
State v. Serebin, 350 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 1984). “This review concerns a court of appeals opinion [1] reversing a jury verdict finding the defendant, Stephen Serebin, guilty of homicide by reckless conduct, contrary to sec. 940.06, Stats. 1975, and guilty of twelve counts of abuse of inmates of an institution, party to a crime,…”
In the Matter of James Michael Zarzynski & Kathryn Kleist Zarzynski, Debtors-Appellants, 771 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1985).
State v. Krueger, 351 N.W.2d 738 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Salter, 346 N.W.2d 318 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.06(2) — 7 cases
State v. Spears, 433 N.W.2d 595 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “His conduct consisted of "an act which creates a situation of unreasonable risk and high probability of death or great bodily harm to another and which demonstrates a conscious disregard for the safety of another and a willingness to take known chances of perpetrating an injury.”
State v. Serebin, 350 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 1984). “This review concerns a court of appeals opinion [1] reversing a jury verdict finding the defendant, Stephen Serebin, guilty of homicide by reckless conduct, contrary to sec. 940.06, Stats. 1975, and guilty of twelve counts of abuse of inmates of an institution, party to a crime,…”
State v. Sarabia, 348 N.W.2d 527 (Wis. 1984).
State v. Echols, 449 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
Gedlen v. Unborn Child. of Safran Ex Rel. Kaiser, 306 N.W.2d 27 (Wis. 1981). “, the principal beneficiary of her will, was convicted on a plea of no contest, of causing her death by reckless conduct in violation of sec. 940.06, Stats. (1975). [1] The principal issues presented on appeal are: 1.”
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.