Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (2026)
Sexual exploitation of a child
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
948.05(1)(1) Whoever does any of the following with knowledge of the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct involving the child may be penalized under sub. (2p):
948.05(1)(a)(a) Employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of recording or displaying in any way the conduct.
948.05(1m)(1m) Whoever produces, performs in, profits from, promotes, imports into the state, reproduces, advertises, sells, distributes, or possesses with intent to sell or distribute, any recording of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct may be penalized under sub. (2p) if the person knows the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct involving the child and if the person knows or reasonably should know that the child engaging in the sexually explicit conduct has not attained the age of 18 years.
948.05(2)(2) A person responsible for a child’s welfare who knowingly permits, allows or encourages the child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for a purpose proscribed in sub. (1) (a) or (b) or (1m) may be penalized under sub. (2p).
948.05(2p)(a)(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a person who violates sub. (1), (1m), or (2) is guilty of a Class C felony.
948.05(2p)(b)(b) A person who violates sub. (1), (1m), or (2) is guilty of a Class F felony if the person is under 18 years of age when the offense occurs.
948.05(3)(3) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for violation of sub. (1) (a) or (b) or (2) if the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the child had attained the age of 18 years. A defendant who raises this affirmative defense has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
948.05 Annotation“Import” under sub. (1) (c) [now sub. (1m)] means bringing in from an external source and does not require a commercial element or exempt personal use. State v. Bruckner, 151 Wis. 2d 833, 447 N.W.2d 376 (Ct. App. 1989).
948.05 AnnotationThe purposes of this section, child exploitation, and s. 948.07, child enticement, are distinct, and two distinct crimes are envisioned by the statutes. Charging both for the same act was not multiplicitous. State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, 98-0642.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999).
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “The issue before the court is whether Wis. Stat. § 948.05 prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a child violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution for failing to require that the State prove…”
State v. Zarnke, 572 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “The State evidently believes the affirmative defense provision applies to all § 948.05, Stats., violations and therefore conflicts with the X-Citement Video holding that knowledge of minority is an element of the offense.”
State v. DeRango, 599 N.W.2d 27 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “07(1), so may one be convicted of sexual exploitation of a child under § 948.05, Stats., and child enticement with the intent to take pictures of the child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, see § 948.”
State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89 (Wis. 2000). “Derango was charged with one count of child sexual exploitation (using, persuading, inducing, or enticing a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of videotaping the conduct) contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (l)(a) (1995-96). 1 After the preliminary hearing,…”
State v. Heather L. Steinhardt, 2017 WI 62 (Wis. 2017). “§ 948.05 ) allowed the defendant to be charged under both for the same conduct).”
State v. Petrone, 468 N.W.2d 676 (Wis. 1991). “It directed deputies to seize "photo album(s) containing nude photographs of female juvenile(s) together with developed photographs and 35 mm negatives of same.”
State v. Weidner, 2000 WI 52 (Wis. 2000). “In Zarnke , this court recently addressed the issue of whether the child sexual exploitation statute, Wis. Stat. § 948.05 , was constitutional as applied to distributors of child pornography.”
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “For example, a person could be charged and convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (1m) for selling a hard drive containing various pictures and videos depicting a child engaging in sexual acts.”
Purcell v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 382 (Ky. 2004). “13 § 2822; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 948.05 . [11] E.g., Ark.”
State v. Whistleman, 2001 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “The second statute Whistleman refers us to — Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (lm) — concerns the sexual exploitation of children and therefore may be considered related to Wis.”
State v. Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “Giancarlo Giacomantonio appeals from a judgment of conviction of sexual exploitation of a child, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (l)(a) (2013-14), entered after a jury trial.”
State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65 (Wis. 2002). “In Zarnke , the defendant challenged Wis. Stat. § 948.05 , which generally prohibits the sale or distribution of child pornography.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(1) — 2 cases
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “The issue before the court is whether Wis. Stat. § 948.05 prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a child violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution for failing to require that the State prove…”
State v. Zarnke, 572 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “The State evidently believes the affirmative defense provision applies to all § 948.05, Stats., violations and therefore conflicts with the X-Citement Video holding that knowledge of minority is an element of the offense.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Church, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “For example, a person could be charged and convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (1m) for selling a hard drive containing various pictures and videos depicting a child engaging in sexual acts.”
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(1)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “For example, a person could be charged and convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (1m) for selling a hard drive containing various pictures and videos depicting a child engaging in sexual acts.”
State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2023 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021).
E. K. v. Scott T. Blood (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “The issue before the court is whether Wis. Stat. § 948.05 prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a child violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution for failing to require that the State prove…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(1m) — 3 cases
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “For example, a person could be charged and convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (1m) for selling a hard drive containing various pictures and videos depicting a child engaging in sexual acts.”
State v. Michael Joseph Gasper, 2026 WI 3 (Wis. 2026).
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(2) — 2 cases
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “For example, a person could be charged and convicted of one count of sexual exploitation of a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (1m) for selling a hard drive containing various pictures and videos depicting a child engaging in sexual acts.”
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(3) — 3 cases
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “The issue before the court is whether Wis. Stat. § 948.05 prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a child violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution for failing to require that the State prove…”
State v. Zarnke, 572 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “The State evidently believes the affirmative defense provision applies to all § 948.05, Stats., violations and therefore conflicts with the X-Citement Video holding that knowledge of minority is an element of the offense.”
State v. Lentowski, 569 N.W.2d 758 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. DeRango, 599 N.W.2d 27 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “07(1), so may one be convicted of sexual exploitation of a child under § 948.05, Stats., and child enticement with the intent to take pictures of the child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, see § 948.”
State v. Church, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Hornung, 600 N.W.2d 264 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Petrone, 468 N.W.2d 676 (Wis. 1991). “It directed deputies to seize "photo album(s) containing nude photographs of female juvenile(s) together with developed photographs and 35 mm negatives of same.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(l)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “The issue before the court is whether Wis. Stat. § 948.05 prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a child violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution for failing to require that the State prove…”
State v. Zarnke, 572 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “The State evidently believes the affirmative defense provision applies to all § 948.05, Stats., violations and therefore conflicts with the X-Citement Video holding that knowledge of minority is an element of the offense.”
State v. Bruckner, 447 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.05(lm) — 1 case
State v. Whistleman, 2001 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “The second statute Whistleman refers us to — Wis. Stat. § 948.05 (lm) — concerns the sexual exploitation of children and therefore may be considered related to Wis.”
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.