Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (2026)
Injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
940.25(1)(a)(a) Causes great bodily harm to another human being by the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
940.25(1)(am)(am) Causes great bodily harm to another human being by the operation of a vehicle while the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
940.25(1)(b)(b) Causes great bodily harm to another human being by the operation of a vehicle while the person has a prohibited alcohol concentration, as defined in s. 340.01 (46m).
940.25(1)(bm)(bm) Causes great bodily harm to another human being by the operation of a commercial motor vehicle while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more but less than 0.08.
940.25(1)(c)(c) Causes great bodily harm to an unborn child by the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
940.25(1)(cm)(cm) Causes great bodily harm to an unborn child by the operation of a vehicle while the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
940.25(1)(d)(d) Causes great bodily harm to an unborn child by the operation of a vehicle while the person has a prohibited alcohol concentration, as defined in s. 340.01 (46m).
940.25(1)(e)(e) Causes great bodily harm to an unborn child by the operation of a commercial motor vehicle while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more but less than 0.08.
940.25(1d)(1d) A person who violates sub. (1) is subject to the requirements and procedures for installation of an ignition interlock device under s. 343.301.
940.25(1m)(a)(a) A person may be charged with and a prosecutor may proceed upon an information based upon a violation of any combination of sub. (1) (a), (am), or (b); any combination of sub. (1) (a), (am), or (bm); any combination of sub. (1) (c), (cm), or (d); or any combination of sub. (1) (c), (cm), or (e) for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence.
940.25(1m)(b)(b) If a person is charged in an information with any of the combinations of crimes referred to in par. (a), the crimes shall be joined under s. 971.12. If the person is found guilty of more than one of the crimes so charged for acts arising out of the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for purposes of sentencing and for purposes of counting convictions under s. 23.33 (13) (b) 2. and 3., under s. 23.335 (23) (c) 2. and 3., under s. 30.80 (6) (a) 2. or 3., under ss. 343.30 (1q) and 343.305 or under s. 350.11 (3) (a) 2. and 3. Subsection (1) (a), (am), (b), (bm), (c), (cm), (d), and (e) each require proof of a fact for conviction which the others do not require.
940.25(2)(a)(a) The defendant has a defense if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the great bodily harm would have occurred even if he or she had been exercising due care and he or she had not been under the influence of an intoxicant, did not have a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, or did not have an alcohol concentration described under sub. (1) (b), (bm), (d) or (e).
940.25(2)(b)(b) In any action under this section that is based on the defendant allegedly having a detectable amount of methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his or her blood, the defendant has a defense if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the incident or occurrence he or she had a valid prescription for methamphetamine or one of its metabolic precursors, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.
940.25(3)(3) An officer who makes an arrest for a violation of this section shall make a report as required under s. 23.33 (4t), 23.335 (12) (j), 30.686, 346.635 or 350.106.
940.25 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 193, 272; 1981 c. 20, 184; 1983 a. 459; 1985 a. 331; 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 105, 275, 359; 1991 a. 277; 1993 a. 317, 428, 478; 1995 a. 425, 436; 1997 a. 237, 295; 1999 a. 32, 109, 186; 2001 a. 16, 109; 2003 a. 30, 97; 2005 a. 253; 2009 a. 100; 2015 a. 170.
940.25 NoteNOTE: For legislative intent see chapter 20, laws of 1981, section 2051 (13).
940.25 AnnotationThe double jeopardy clause was not violated by a charge under sub. (1) (c) [now sub. (1m)] of violations of sub. (1) (a) and (b). State v. Bohacheff, 114 Wis. 2d 402, 338 N.W.2d 466 (1983).
940.25 AnnotationThe trial court did not err in refusing to admit expert testimony indicating that the victims would not have suffered the same injury had they been wearing seat belts; the evidence was not relevant to a defense under sub. (2). State v. Turk, 154 Wis. 2d 294, 453 N.W.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1990).
940.25 AnnotationThe offense under sub. (1) (am) has two elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated a vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the defendant’s blood; and 2) the defendant’s operation of the vehicle caused great bodily harm to the victim. The elements of the crime do not provide the state with any presumptions that relieve the state of its burden to establish the two elements beyond a reasonable doubt nor did the legislature’s enactment, without requiring a causal link between drug use and the injury as an element of the crime, in some way exceeds its authority. State v. Gardner, 2006 WI App 92, 292 Wis. 2d 682, 715 N.W.2d 720, 05-1372.
940.25 AnnotationThe affirmative defense under sub. (2) (a) does not shift to the defendant the burden to prove that the defendant is innocent. It requires the defendant to prove that despite the fact that the state has satisfied the elements of the offense, the defendant cannot be held legally responsible under the statute. State v. Gardner, 2006 WI App 92, 292 Wis. 2d 682, 715 N.W.2d 720, 05-1372.
940.25 Annotation“Materially impaired” as used in the definition of “under the influence of an intoxicant” in s. 939.22 (42) does not have a technical or peculiar meaning in the law beyond the time-tested explanations in standard jury instructions. Therefore, the circuit court’s response to the jury question to give all words not otherwise defined their ordinary meaning was not error, comported with s. 990.01, and did not constitute an erroneous exercise of discretion. State v. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92, 313 Wis. 2d 1, 752 N.W.2d 839, 06-2753.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92 (Wis. 2008).
State v. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92 (Wis. 2008). “Hubbard (Hubbard) was convicted in a jury trial of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(a). [2] During deliberations, the jury requested clarification of a word or term in the jury instructions.”
State v. Adam M. Blackman, 2017 WI 77 (Wis. 2017). “6 Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(a). 7 Wis. Stat. § 940.”
State v. Michael R. Luedtke, 2015 WI 42 (Wis. 2015). “Weissinger ("Weissinger") with one count of injury by use of a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in the blood causing great bodily harm, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(am),6 and one count of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted…”
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “On August 14, 2000, the State filed a criminal complaint against Stenklyft, charging him with one count of causing great bodily harm by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxi *496 cant, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(a) (1999-2000), and one count…”
State v. Christopher Joseph Allen, 2017 WI 7 (Wis. 2017). “09 (l)(b); (3) injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle resulting in great bodily harm in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(a); (4) injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle resulting in great bodily harm with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of Wis.”
State v. Gardner, 2006 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Eric Benjamin Gardner appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no *686 contest to one count of injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(am) (2003-04). 1 Gardner claims that § 940.”
Huml v. Vlazny, 2006 WI 87 (Wis. 2006). “On November 11, 1993, Vlazny was convicted of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(a). The circuit court sentenced Vlazny to two years imprisonment but stayed the sentence and placed him on three years probation.”
State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89 (Wis. 2003). “In Bohacheff , for instance, the state charged the defendant with being under the influence of an intoxicant while operating a vehicle, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(a) (1981-82), and having a blood alcohol concentration of .”
McCarthy v. Pollard, 656 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2011). “Shane McCarthy was convicted in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court of causing great bodily harm by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of cocaine, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(am). After unsuccessfully seeking post-conviction relief in Wisconsin state…”
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2025 WI 30 (Wis. 2025). “§ 940.25 (1981–82) required that there be a single conviction “for all purposes.”
State v. Lechner, 576 N.W.2d 912 (Wis. 1998). “06 ; (2) homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, in violation of Wis.”
State v. Sauceda, 485 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1992). “Section 940.25(1)(a), (b), (c), Stats. 1981-82, authorized the prosecutor to charge the accused with two counts of causing great bodily harm to another human being by operation of a motor vehicle.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1) — 4 cases
State v. Bohacheff, 338 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. 1983).
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2025 WI 30 (Wis. 2025). “§ 940.25 (1981–82) required that there be a single conviction “for all purposes.”
State v. Jack Ray Zimmerman, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Jeramy Gene Brown (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1)(a) — 11 cases
State v. Sauceda, 485 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1992). “Section 940.25(1)(a), (b), (c), Stats. 1981-82, authorized the prosecutor to charge the accused with two counts of causing great bodily harm to another human being by operation of a motor vehicle.”
State v. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92 (Wis. 2008). “Hubbard (Hubbard) was convicted in a jury trial of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(a). [2] During deliberations, the jury requested clarification of a word or term in the jury instructions.”
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “On August 14, 2000, the State filed a criminal complaint against Stenklyft, charging him with one count of causing great bodily harm by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxi *496 cant, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(a) (1999-2000), and one count…”
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2025 WI 30 (Wis. 2025). “§ 940.25 (1981–82) required that there be a single conviction “for all purposes.”
State v. Turk, 453 N.W.2d 163 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1)(am) — 5 cases
State v. Michael R. Luedtke, 2015 WI 42 (Wis. 2015). “Weissinger ("Weissinger") with one count of injury by use of a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in the blood causing great bodily harm, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(am),6 and one count of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted…”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Jessica M. Weissinger (Wis. 2015).
State v. Michael R. Luedtke (Wis. 2015).
State v. Jessica M. Weissinger (Wis. 2015).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Thierfelder, 495 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. 1993).
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2025 WI 30 (Wis. 2025). “§ 940.25 (1981–82) required that there be a single conviction “for all purposes.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2025 WI 30 (Wis. 2025). “§ 940.25 (1981–82) required that there be a single conviction “for all purposes.”
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2024 WI App 29 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(2) — 2 cases
State v. Turk, 453 N.W.2d 163 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Loomer, 451 N.W.2d 470 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Gardner, 2006 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Eric Benjamin Gardner appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no *686 contest to one count of injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(am) (2003-04). 1 Gardner claims that § 940.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(l)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92 (Wis. 2008). “Hubbard (Hubbard) was convicted in a jury trial of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(a). [2] During deliberations, the jury requested clarification of a word or term in the jury instructions.”
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “On August 14, 2000, the State filed a criminal complaint against Stenklyft, charging him with one count of causing great bodily harm by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxi *496 cant, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(a) (1999-2000), and one count…”
State v. Thierfelder, 495 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. 1993).
State v. Lynch, 2006 WI App 231 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Kletzien, 2008 WI App 182 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(l)(am) — 2 cases
State v. Michael R. Luedtke, 2015 WI 42 (Wis. 2015). “Weissinger ("Weissinger") with one count of injury by use of a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in the blood causing great bodily harm, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (1)(am),6 and one count of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted…”
State v. Gardner, 2006 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Eric Benjamin Gardner appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no *686 contest to one count of injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(am) (2003-04). 1 Gardner claims that § 940.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.25(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Kletzien, 2008 WI App 182 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Thierfelder, 495 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. 1993).
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.