Wis. Stat. § 943.30

943.30 Threats to injure or accuse of crime. (1) Who- gerous weapon, a device or container described under s. 941.26 ever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, (4) (a) or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the vic-

2023-24 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2025 Wis. Act 137 and through all Supreme Court Orders and Controlled Sub- stances Board Orders filed before and in effect on May 13, 2026. Published and certified under s. 35.18. Changes effective after May 13, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-13-26)

19

tim reasonably to believe that it is a dangerous weapon or such a (bm) A Class H felony, if the property is a firearm or if the device or container is guilty of a Class C felony. value of the property exceeds $5,000 but does not exceed (3) In this section “owner” means a person in possession of $10,000. property whether the person’s possession is lawful or unlawful. (c) A Class G felony, if the value of the property exceeds History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 114; 1993 a. 486; 1995 a. 288; 2001 a. 109. $10,000. While a person who by use of force or a gun seeks to repossess specific property that the person owns and has a present right of possession to might not have the in- (2) In any action or proceeding for a violation of sub. (1), a tention to steal, the taking of money from a debtor by force to pay a debt is robbery party may use duly identified and authenticated photographs of unless the accused can trace that ownership to the specific coins and bills in the property which was the subject of the violation in lieu of produc- debtor’s possession. Edwards v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 105, 181 N.W.2d 383 (1970). Since attempted robbery requires proof of elements in addition to those required ing the property. to prove burglary, they are separate and distinct crimes. State v. DiMaggio, 49 Wis. History: 1977 c. 173; 1987 a. 266, 332; 1991 a. 39; 2001 a. 16, 109; 2011 a. 99. 2d 565, 182 N.W.2d 466 (1971). The fact that sequentially received stolen property was purchased for a lump sum It is error not to instruct on the allegations that the defendant was armed and that was an insufficient basis to aggregate the value of the property; the crime of receiv- he attempted to conceal his identity, but it is harmless error when the facts are un- ing stolen property does not require payment. State v. Spraggin, 71 Wis. 2d 604, 239 controverted. Claybrooks v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 79, 183 N.W.2d 139 (1971). N.W.2d 297 (1976). On a charge of armed robbery, the court should instruct as to the definition of a If any element of the crime charged occurred in a given county, then that county dangerous weapon, but the error is harmless if all the evidence is to the effect that can be the place of trial. Because the crime of receiving stolen property requires the defendant had a gun. Claybrooks v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 87, 183 N.W.2d 143 more than two acts, and one of the acts is that the property must be stolen, venue is (1971). properly established in the county where that act occurred. State v. Lippold, 2008 If the evidence is clear that the defendant was armed, the court need not submit a WI App 130, 313 Wis. 2d 699, 757 N.W.2d 825, 07-1773. verdict of unarmed robbery. Kimmons v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 266, 186 N.W.2d 308 (1971). 943.37 Alteration of property identification marks. An information charging armed robbery is void if it fails to allege the use or threat Whoever does any of the following with intent to prevent the of force to overcome the owner’s resistance. Champlain v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 751, 193 N.W.2d 868 (1972). identification of the property involved is guilty of a Class A Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Both require asportation. Moore v. misdemeanor: State, 55 Wis. 2d 1, 197 N.W.2d 820 (1972). Taking a pouch from the victim by force and in such a manner as to overcome any (1) Alters or removes any identification mark on any log or physical resistance or power of resistance constituted robbery and not theft under s. other lumber without the consent of the owner; or 943.20. Walton v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 36, 218 N.W.2d 309 (1974). When a victim testified that the defendant’s accomplice held an object to his (2) Alters or removes any identification mark from any recep- throat while the defendant took money from his person and the defendant testified tacle used by the manufacturer of any beverage; or that no robbery whatsoever occurred, the jury was presented with no evidence indi- (3) Alters or removes any manufacturer’s identification num- cating that a robbery absent the threat of force had occurred. It was not error to deny the defendant’s request for an instruction on theft from a person. State v. Powers, 66 ber on personal property or possesses any personal property with Wis. 2d 84, 224 N.W.2d 206 (1974). knowledge that the manufacturer’s identification number has When a defendant lost money to a dice cheat and thereafter recovered a similar been removed or altered. Possession of 2 or more similar items of amount at gunpoint, the jury could convict despite the defendant’s claim that the bills recovered were those lost. Austin v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 213, 271 N.W.2d 668 personal property with the manufacturer’s identification number (1978). altered or removed is prima facie evidence of knowledge of the Sub. (1) states one offense that may be committed by alternate means. The jury was properly instructed in the disjunctive on the force element. Manson v. State, 101 alteration or removal and of an intent to prevent identification of Wis. 2d 413, 304 N.W.2d 729 (1981). the property. Armed robbery can be the natural and probable consequence of robbery. In such (4) Alters or removes livestock brands, recorded under s. case, an aider and abettor need not have had actual knowledge that the principals would be armed. State v. Ivy, 119 Wis. 2d 591, 350 N.W.2d 622 (1984). 95.11, from any animal without the owner’s consent, or possesses If the defendant commits a robbery while merely possessing a dangerous weapon, any livestock with knowledge that the brand has been altered or the penalty enhancer under s. 939.63 is applicable. State v. Robinson, 140 Wis. 2d removed without the owner’s knowledge or consent. 673, 412 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1987). A defendant’s lack of intent to make a victim believe that the defendant is armed History: 1973 c. 239; 1977 c. 173. is irrelevant in finding a violation of sub. (2); if the victim’s belief that the defendant “Similar” under sub. (3) means comparable or substantially alike. State v. Hamil- is armed is reasonable, that is enough. State v. Hubanks, 173 Wis. 2d 1, 496 N.W.2d ton, 146 Wis. 2d 426, 432 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1988). 96 (Ct. App. 1992). Extortion is not a lesser included offense of robbery. Convictions for both are not 943.38 Forgery. (1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely precluded. State v. Dauer, 174 Wis. 2d 418, 497 N.W.2d 766 (Ct. App. 1993). makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds This section does not require a specific intent that property that is demanded actu- ally be transferred. State v. Voss, 205 Wis. 2d 586, 556 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another 1996), 95-1183. time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did Asportation, or carrying away, is an element of robbery. The asportation require- not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony: ment provides a bright line distinction between attempt and robbery. There is no ex- ception for an automobile that is entered by force, but cannot be moved by the defen- (a) A writing or object whereby legal rights or obligations are dant. State v. Johnson, 207 Wis. 2d 239, 558 N.W.2d 375 (1997), 95-0072. created, terminated or transferred, or any writing commonly re- The key to a conviction under sub. (2) is whether the victim reasonably believed that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon even though the victim did lied upon in business or commercial transactions as evidence of not see anything that was perceived as a weapon. In applying reasonable belief to debt or property rights; or the armed-robbery statute, courts must consider the circumstances of the individual case. State v. Rittman, 2010 WI App 41, 324 Wis. 2d 273, 781 N.W.2d 545, 09- (b) A public record or a certified or authenticated copy 0708. thereof; or The state’s attempt to retry the defendant for armed robbery, alleging the use of a different weapon after the trial judge concluded that acquittal on a first armed rob- (c) An official authentication or certification of a copy of a bery charge resulted from insufficient evidence of the use of a gun, violated double public record; or jeopardy protections. It did not necessarily follow that the state was prevented from pursuing a charge of simple robbery however. Losey v. Frank, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (d) An official return or certificate entitled to be received as (2003). evidence of its contents. Letting Armed Robbery Get Away: An Analysis of Wisconsin’s Armed Robbery Statute. Goodstein. 1998 WLR 591. (2) Whoever utters as genuine or possesses with intent to ut- ter as false or as genuine any forged writing or object mentioned