Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (2026)
Use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
948.075(1r)(1r) Whoever uses a computerized communication system to communicate with an individual who the actor believes or has reason to believe has not attained the age of 16 years with intent to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the individual in violation of s. 948.02 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class C felony.
948.075(2)(2) This section does not apply if, at the time of the communication, the actor reasonably believed that the age of the person to whom the communication was sent was no more than 24 months less than the age of the actor.
948.075(3)(3) Proof that the actor did an act, other than use a computerized communication system to communicate with the individual, to effect the actor’s intent under sub. (1r) shall be necessary to prove that intent.
948.075 AnnotationThe defendant’s admission to driving to the alleged victim’s neighborhood for an innocent purpose combined with computer communications, in which the defendant told the alleged victim that he drove through her neighborhood for the specific purpose of meeting her, and his confession to the police that he went to the area so he could “get her interested in chatting with him again,” showed that the non-computer-assisted act of driving through the area was to effect his intent to have sex with the alleged victim and satisfied the requirement in sub. (3). State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263, 298 Wis. 2d 155, 726 N.W.2d 706, 06-0283.
948.075 AnnotationThe defendant’s use of a webcam to transmit video of himself was, under the circumstances of this case, nothing more than the use of the defendant’s computer to communicate and thus not an act “other than us[ing] a computerized communication system to communicate” as required under sub. (3). State v. Olson, 2008 WI App 171, 314 Wis. 2d 630, 762 N.W.2d 393, 08-0587.
948.075 AnnotationThe element use of a “computerized communication system” in sub. (1r) was satisfied when the defendant used a flip-style cellphone to exchange texts with, and receive picture messages from, the 14-year-old victim. There is no doubt that modern cellphones today are in fact computers. The defendant used the defendant’s cellphone as a computer to send communications to the victim over the computer system used by their cellphones so that the defendant could have sexual contact with the victim. State v. McKellips, 2016 WI 51, 369 Wis. 2d 437, 881 N.W.2d 258, 14-0827.
948.075 AnnotationThis section is not unconstitutionally vague because a person of ordinary intelligence would understand that using a cellphone to text or picture message with a child to entice sexual encounters violates the statute, and this section is capable of objective enforcement. State v. McKellips, 2016 WI 51, 369 Wis. 2d 437, 881 N.W.2d 258, 14-0827.
948.075 AnnotationThe legislature had reasonable and practical grounds for making a conviction for using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime under sub. (1r) subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. Thus, there was a rational basis for the penalty enhancer in s. 939.617 (1), and it was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. State v. Heidke, 2016 WI App 55, 370 Wis. 2d 771, 883 N.W.2d 162, 15-1420.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: State v. Rory A. McKellips, 2016 WI 51 (Wis. 2016).
State v. Rory A. McKellips, 2016 WI 51 (Wis. 2016). “3 We also address whether Wis. Stat. § 948.075 is unconstitutionally vague, whether the jury instruction on this charge was erroneous, and if so, whether this instruction was harmless, and whether the court of appeals erred when it exercised its discretionary authority under Wis.”
State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “See Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . He contends that the State did not satisfy § 948.”
State v. Olson, 2008 WI App 171 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “Eric Olson entered a plea to a charge of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . 1 This crime requires proof "that the actor did an act, other than use a computerized communication system to communicate with the individual, to…”
State v. McKellips, 2015 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Rory McKellips appeals a judgment of conviction for use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . 1 McKellips argues the State failed to prove he communicated with the victim via a "computerized communication system.”
Stern v. Meisner, 812 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2016). “A jury convicted Stern of one count of using a computer to facilitate a sex crime against a child, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (lr) (2011-12) (the “Statute”).”
State v. BVOCIK, 2010 WI App 49 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “Bvocik used a computer to facilitate a meeting with what he thought to be an underage girl in order to have sex, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (1) (2007-08). 1 There never was an underage girl; she was a twenty-eight-year-old woman pretending to be fourteen.”
State v. Peter J. King, Jr., 2020 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 948.075(1) and 948.07(1) (2003-04).1 ¶7 A jury found King guilty on both counts.”
State v. Lalicata, 2012 WI App 138 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “05 , use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, Wis. Stat. § 948.075 , and possession of child pornography, Wis.”
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engl, 2005 WI 102 (Wis. 2005). “He was charged with one count of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (1) (2003-04), a Class D felony.”
McKellips, Rory v. Winkleski, Dan (W.D. Wis. 2022). “Repeating his argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.075 is void for vagueness in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, petitioner McKellips seeks habeas corpus relief from this court.”
State v. Harris, 2012 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “He pled guilty to use of a computer to facilitate a child sex *483 crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (1) (2003-04), 3 and was sentenced to one and one-half years of initial confinement followed by ten years of extended supervision, for a total eleven and one-half year…”
State v. Stuckey, 2013 WI App 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Based on the above facts, the State charged Stuckey with three crimes: Count 1 — use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (lr); Count 2 — exposing genitals or pubic area to a child contrary to Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.075(1) — 3 cases
State v. Peter J. King, Jr., 2020 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 948.075(1) and 948.07(1) (2003-04).1 ¶7 A jury found King guilty on both counts.”
State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “See Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . He contends that the State did not satisfy § 948.”
State v. Olson, 2008 WI App 171 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “Eric Olson entered a plea to a charge of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . 1 This crime requires proof "that the actor did an act, other than use a computerized communication system to communicate with the individual, to…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.075(1r) — 4 cases
State v. Rory A. McKellips, 2016 WI 51 (Wis. 2016). “3 We also address whether Wis. Stat. § 948.075 is unconstitutionally vague, whether the jury instruction on this charge was erroneous, and if so, whether this instruction was harmless, and whether the court of appeals erred when it exercised its discretionary authority under Wis.”
McKellips, Rory v. Winkleski, Dan (W.D. Wis. 2022). “Repeating his argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.075 is void for vagueness in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, petitioner McKellips seeks habeas corpus relief from this court.”
State v. Christopher W. LeBlanc (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Christopher W. LeBlanc (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.075(3) — 3 cases
State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “See Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . He contends that the State did not satisfy § 948.”
State v. Olson, 2008 WI App 171 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “Eric Olson entered a plea to a charge of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . 1 This crime requires proof "that the actor did an act, other than use a computerized communication system to communicate with the individual, to…”
Sauve v. Mesiner (E.D. Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.075(lr) — 3 cases
State v. Rory A. McKellips, 2016 WI 51 (Wis. 2016). “3 We also address whether Wis. Stat. § 948.075 is unconstitutionally vague, whether the jury instruction on this charge was erroneous, and if so, whether this instruction was harmless, and whether the court of appeals erred when it exercised its discretionary authority under Wis.”
State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “See Wis. Stat. § 948.075 . He contends that the State did not satisfy § 948.”
State v. Heidke, 2016 WI App 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016).
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.