Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 946.10 (2026)
Bribery of public officers and employees
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
946.10946.10 Bribery of public officers and employees. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of a Class H felony:
946.10(1)(1) Whoever, with intent to influence the conduct of any public officer or public employee in relation to any matter which by law is pending or might come before the officer or employee in the officer’s or employee’s capacity as such officer or employee or with intent to induce the officer or employee to do or omit to do any act in violation of the officer’s or employee’s lawful duty transfers or promises to the officer or employee or on the officer’s or employee’s behalf any property or any personal advantage which the officer or employee is not authorized to receive; or
946.10(2)(2) Any public officer or public employee who directly or indirectly accepts or offers to accept any property or any personal advantage, which the officer or employee is not authorized to receive, pursuant to an understanding that the officer or employee will act in a certain manner in relation to any matter which by law is pending or might come before the officer or employee in the officer’s or employee’s capacity as such officer or employee or that the officer or employee will do or omit to do any act in violation of the officer’s or employee’s lawful duty.
946.10 AnnotationCircumstantial evidence supported an inference that the defendant intended to influence a public official’s actions. State v. Rosenfeld, 93 Wis. 2d 325, 286 N.W.2d 596 (1980).
946.10 AnnotationA sworn juror is a public employee under sub. (2). State v. Sammons, 141 Wis. 2d 833, 417 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1987).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1967–2020 · leading case: Bammert v. Don's SuperValu, Inc., 2002 WI 85 (Wis. 2002).
Bammert v. Don's SuperValu, Inc., 2002 WI 85 (Wis. 2002). “10 (1997-98) clearly points out, as a society we do not allow a person to bribe, intimidate, or otherwise illegally influence police officers about any pending matter or any matter that "might come before the officer". In turn, there is no reason to allow an employer to bribe,…”
State v. Baron, 2009 WI 58 (Wis. 2009). “¶ 63 One particularly apt example is Wis. Stat. § 946.10 (1), which criminalizes bribery of public officers.”
State v. Stanfield, 314 N.W.2d 339 (Wis. 1982). “2d 550 (1967), in which this court was persuaded by legislative history, including the text of successive statutes on the same subject and committee reports, that criminal intent was an element of the crime of bribery of a public officer as defined by sec. 946.10(2), Stats.…”
State v. Stoehr, 396 N.W.2d 177 (Wis. 1986). “*81 Sections 946.10 relating to bribery and 946.”
State v. Alfonsi, 147 N.W.2d 550 (Wis. 1967). “Sec. 946.10, Stats., relating to bribery of public officials and employees, requires in sub.”
State v. Tronca, 267 N.W.2d 216 (Wis. 1978). “, sec. 946.10, Stats., criminal liability falls *85 on both the public officer and the person who offers a bribe.”
State v. Baron, 2008 WI App 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “A particularly apt example is Wis. Stat. § 946.10 (1), which prohibits bribery of public officers.”
State v. Rosenfeld, 286 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. 1980). “Healy to introduce, was later introduced by another board member at the June, 1972 board meeting establishes one of the elements of sec. 946.10(1), Stats., that the matter “.”
Ryan v. State, 255 N.W.2d 910 (Wis. 1977). “If a person complains to a judge that he has reason to believe that a crime has been committed within his jurisdiction, the judge shall examine the complainant under oath and any witnesses produced by him and may, and at the request of the district attorney shall, subpoena and…”
People v. Brandstetter, 430 N.E.2d 731 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982). “) A Wisconsin bribery statute making similar use of the phrase “personal advantage” ( Wis. Stat. Ann. §946.10 (West 1958)) was held to be sufficiently specific.”
Kucharek v. Hanaway, 714 F. Supp. 1499 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “’ In our view, the latter phrase brings § 946.10(2), stats., within the scope of § 939.”
State v. Jensen, 2007 WI App 256 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Alfonsi, then the assembly minority floor leader, was charged with bribery of public officers and employees in violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.10 (1965). The issue the court considered (giving rise to the quote used by Jensen here) was whether the bribery statute required specific…”
— Wis. Stat. § 946.10(1) — 3 cases
Bammert v. Don's SuperValu, Inc., 2002 WI 85 (Wis. 2002). “10 (1997-98) clearly points out, as a society we do not allow a person to bribe, intimidate, or otherwise illegally influence police officers about any pending matter or any matter that "might come before the officer". In turn, there is no reason to allow an employer to bribe,…”
State v. Baron, 2009 WI 58 (Wis. 2009). “¶ 63 One particularly apt example is Wis. Stat. § 946.10 (1), which criminalizes bribery of public officers.”
State v. Rosenfeld, 286 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. 1980). “Healy to introduce, was later introduced by another board member at the June, 1972 board meeting establishes one of the elements of sec. 946.10(1), Stats., that the matter “.”
— Wis. Stat. § 946.10(2) — 3 cases
State v. Stanfield, 314 N.W.2d 339 (Wis. 1982). “2d 550 (1967), in which this court was persuaded by legislative history, including the text of successive statutes on the same subject and committee reports, that criminal intent was an element of the crime of bribery of a public officer as defined by sec. 946.10(2), Stats.…”
Kucharek v. Hanaway, 714 F. Supp. 1499 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “’ In our view, the latter phrase brings § 946.10(2), stats., within the scope of § 939.”
State v. Sammons, 417 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
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.