Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2026)
Exposing a child to harmful material or harmful descriptions or narrations
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
948.11(1)(ag)(ag) “Harmful description or narrative account” means any explicit and detailed description or narrative account of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children.
948.11(1)(ar)1.1. Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality and that is harmful to children; or
948.11(1)(ar)2.2. Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced or recording that contains any matter enumerated in subd. 1., or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality and that, taken as a whole, is harmful to children.
948.11(1)(b)(b) “Harmful to children” means that quality of any description, narrative account or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sexual excitement, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture or brutality, when it:
948.11(1)(b)2.2. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children; and
948.11(1)(b)3.3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children, when taken as a whole.
948.11(1)(d)(d) “Nudity” means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
948.11(1)(e)(e) “Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation or other legal entity.
948.11(1)(f)(f) “Sexual excitement” means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
948.11(2)(a)(a) Whoever, with knowledge of the character and content of the material, sells, rents, exhibits, plays, distributes, or loans to a child any harmful material, with or without monetary consideration, is guilty of a Class I felony if any of the following applies:
948.11(2)(a)1.1. The person knows or reasonably should know that the child has not attained the age of 18 years.
948.11(2)(a)2.2. The person has face-to-face contact with the child before or during the sale, rental, exhibit, playing, distribution, or loan.
948.11(2)(am)(am) Any person who has attained the age of 17 and who, with knowledge of the character and content of the description or narrative account, verbally communicates, by any means, a harmful description or narrative account to a child, with or without monetary consideration, is guilty of a Class I felony if any of the following applies:
948.11(2)(am)1.1. The person knows or reasonably should know that the child has not attained the age of 18 years.
948.11(2)(am)2.2. The person has face-to-face contact with the child before or during the communication.
948.11(2)(b)(b) Whoever, with knowledge of the character and content of the material, possesses harmful material with the intent to sell, rent, exhibit, play, distribute, or loan the material to a child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if any of the following applies:
948.11(2)(b)1.1. The person knows or reasonably should know that the child has not attained the age of 18 years.
948.11(2)(c)(c) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a violation of pars. (a) 2., (am) 2., and (b) 2. if the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the child had attained the age of 18 years, and the child exhibited to the defendant a draft card, driver’s license, birth certificate or other official or apparently official document purporting to establish 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.
948.11(3)(3) Extradition. If any person is convicted under sub. (2) and cannot be found in this state, the governor or any person performing the functions of governor by authority of the law shall, unless the convicted person has appealed from the judgment of contempt or conviction and the appeal has not been finally determined, demand his or her extradition from the executive authority of the state in which the person is found.
948.11(4)(a)(a) The legislature finds that the libraries and educational institutions under par. (b) carry out the essential purpose of making available to all citizens a current, balanced collection of books, reference materials, periodicals, sound recordings and audiovisual materials that reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society. The legislature further finds that it is in the interest of the state to protect the financial resources of libraries and educational institutions from being expended in litigation and to permit these resources to be used to the greatest extent possible for fulfilling the essential purpose of libraries and educational institutions.
948.11(4)(b)(b) No person who is an employee, a member of the board of directors or a trustee of any of the following is liable to prosecution for violation of this section for acts or omissions while in his or her capacity as an employee, a member of the board of directors or a trustee:
948.11(4)(b)2.2. A private school, as defined in s. 115.001 (3r), or a tribal school, as defined in s. 115.001 (15m).
948.11(4)(b)3.a.a. Is a technical college, is a school approved by the department of safety and professional services under s. 440.52, or is a school described in s. 440.52 (1) (e) 6., 7. or 8.; and
948.11(4)(b)3.b.b. Is exempt from taxation under section 501 (c) (3) of the internal revenue code, as defined in s. 71.01 (6).
948.11(4)(b)4.4. Any institution of higher education that is accredited, as described in s. 39.30 (1) (d), and is exempt from taxation under section 501 (c) (3) of the internal revenue code, as defined in s. 71.01 (6).
948.11(5)(5) Severability. The provisions of this section, including the provisions of sub. (4), are severable, as provided in s. 990.001 (11).
948.11 HistoryHistory: 1987 a. 332; 1989 a. 31; 1993 a. 220, 399; 1995 a. 27 s. 9154 (1); 1997 a. 27, 82; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 16, 104, 109; 2005 a. 22, 25, 254; 2009 a. 302; 2017 a. 59.
948.11 AnnotationThis section is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The exemption from prosecution of libraries, educational institutions, and their employees and directors does not violate equal protection rights. State v. Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d 505, 515 N.W.2d 847 (1994).
948.11 AnnotationAn individual violates this section if the individual, aware of the nature of the material, knowingly offers or presents for inspection to a specific minor material defined as harmful to children in sub. (1) (b). The personal contact between the perpetrator and the child-victim is what allows the state to impose on the defendant the risk that the victim is a minor. State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, 253 Wis. 2d 38, 644 N.W.2d 891, 00-2545.
948.11 AnnotationThe evidence was not insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict solely because the jury did not view the video alleged to be “harmful material” but instead heard only the children victims’ and a detective’s descriptions of what they saw. State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79, 292 Wis. 2d 43, 717 N.W.2d 676, 04-1435.
948.11 Annotation“Verbally” in sub. (2) (am) is most reasonably read as proscribing communication to children of harmful matter in words, whether oral or written, and to distinguish sub. (2) (am) from sub. (2) (a), which primarily proscribes visual representations. State v. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232, 306 Wis. 2d 371, 742 N.W.2d 876, 06-0833.
948.11 AnnotationWhen the jury was instructed that the state had to prove only that the defendant exhibited harmful material to the child and the instruction did not include the word “knowing” or “intentional,” in light of the instructions in the case and reviewing the proceedings as a whole, there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury was confused and misled about the need for the state to prove an element of the crime. State v. Gonzalez, 2011 WI 63, 335 Wis. 2d 270, 802 N.W.2d 454, 09-1249.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002).
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006). “The State of Wisconsin challenges the court of appeals decision reversing the conviction of Tyrone Booker (Booker) on two counts of exposing a child to harmful materials, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2003-04). [1] The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was not…”
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
State v. Gonzalez, 2011 WI 63 (Wis. 2011). “At trial, the circuit court gave the following jury instruction, substantially tracking the language of the statute in regard to the substantive law of exposing a child to harmful material, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a): Exposing a child to harmful material as defined…”
State v. Weidner, 2000 WI 52 (Wis. 2000). “1 The State of Wisconsin contends that the circuit court erred in finding Wis. Stat. §948.11 (2) (1997-98) 2 unconstitutional as applied to the defendant's actions in transmitting harmful material to a minor via the internet.”
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “This is clear after one examines the final sentence of the Legislative Council Note as provided above: "This affirmative defense is comparable to the affirmative defense recognized in the exposing a child to harmful material statute, as revised in s.”
State v. Kevin L. C., 576 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “In addition, Kevin claimed that § 948.11, Stats., Exposing a Child to Harmful Materials, is unconstitutional on its face because the statute does not require the State to prove, as an element of the offense, that the defendant knows the victim is a minor.”
State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81 (Wis. 2003). “225 (1)(a)), one count of exposing a child to harmful materials ( Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a)), and one count of second-degree sexual assault by use of force ( Wis.”
Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). “1997); Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2) (Supp. 1995).”
State v. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Ebersold, a high school teacher, verbally communicated a harmful description or narrative account to a child, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(am) (2005-06), 1 by sending sexually explicit messages to one of his students in an Internet chat room.”
State v. Gary Lee Wayerski, 922 N.W.2d 468 (Wis. 2019). “10 (1) ; (3) two counts of exposing a child to harmful material in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) ; (4) two counts of causing a child over the age of 13 to view/listen to sexual activity in violation of Wis.”
State v. David Gutierrez, 2020 WI 52 (Wis. 2020). “See Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a). 7 No. 2017AP2364-CR ¶14 Gutierrez filed a postconviction motion, arguing that he was denied his right to an impartial jury.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(1) — 1 case
State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006). “The State of Wisconsin challenges the court of appeals decision reversing the conviction of Tyrone Booker (Booker) on two counts of exposing a child to harmful materials, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2003-04). [1] The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(1)(ar) — 1 case
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006). “The State of Wisconsin challenges the court of appeals decision reversing the conviction of Tyrone Booker (Booker) on two counts of exposing a child to harmful materials, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2003-04). [1] The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Lala, 2009 WI App 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2) — 10 cases
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
State v. Speese, 528 N.W.2d 63 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Gonzalez, 2011 WI 63 (Wis. 2011). “At trial, the circuit court gave the following jury instruction, substantially tracking the language of the statute in regard to the substantive law of exposing a child to harmful material, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a): Exposing a child to harmful material as defined…”
State v. Weidner, 2000 WI 52 (Wis. 2000). “1 The State of Wisconsin contends that the circuit court erred in finding Wis. Stat. §948.11 (2) (1997-98) 2 unconstitutional as applied to the defendant's actions in transmitting harmful material to a minor via the internet.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(a) — 11 cases
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
State v. Gonzalez, 2011 WI 63 (Wis. 2011). “At trial, the circuit court gave the following jury instruction, substantially tracking the language of the statute in regard to the substantive law of exposing a child to harmful material, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a): Exposing a child to harmful material as defined…”
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
State v. Zarnke, 589 N.W.2d 370 (Wis. 1999). “This is clear after one examines the final sentence of the Legislative Council Note as provided above: "This affirmative defense is comparable to the affirmative defense recognized in the exposing a child to harmful material statute, as revised in s.”
State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006). “The State of Wisconsin challenges the court of appeals decision reversing the conviction of Tyrone Booker (Booker) on two counts of exposing a child to harmful materials, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2003-04). [1] The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) — 1 case
State v. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Ebersold, a high school teacher, verbally communicated a harmful description or narrative account to a child, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(am) (2005-06), 1 by sending sexually explicit messages to one of his students in an Internet chat room.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
State v. Kevin L. C., 576 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “In addition, Kevin claimed that § 948.11, Stats., Exposing a Child to Harmful Materials, is unconstitutional on its face because the statute does not require the State to prove, as an element of the offense, that the defendant knows the victim is a minor.”
State v. Gonzalez, 2011 WI 63 (Wis. 2011). “At trial, the circuit court gave the following jury instruction, substantially tracking the language of the statute in regard to the substantive law of exposing a child to harmful material, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a): Exposing a child to harmful material as defined…”
State v. Stuckey, 2013 WI App 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(4) — 1 case
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(4)(a) — 1 case
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(l)(ag) — 1 case
State v. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Ebersold, a high school teacher, verbally communicated a harmful description or narrative account to a child, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(am) (2005-06), 1 by sending sexually explicit messages to one of his students in an Internet chat room.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(l)(ar) — 2 cases
State v. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “Ebersold, a high school teacher, verbally communicated a harmful description or narrative account to a child, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(am) (2005-06), 1 by sending sexually explicit messages to one of his students in an Internet chat room.”
State v. Weidner, 2000 WI 52 (Wis. 2000). “1 The State of Wisconsin contends that the circuit court erred in finding Wis. Stat. §948.11 (2) (1997-98) 2 unconstitutional as applied to the defendant's actions in transmitting harmful material to a minor via the internet.”
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. 1994). “Thiel also appeals from a November 19, 1991, order wherein Judge Langhoff denied his motion to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and the constitutionality of sec. 948.11, Stats. The questions certified by the court of appeals are as follows: (1)…”
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002). “(Trochinski) seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's decision rejecting Trochinski's argument that Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2)(a) (1997-98) [1] is unconstitutional, and rejecting Trochinski's postconviction motion seeking to withdraw…”
State v. Booker, 2006 WI 79 (Wis. 2006). “The State of Wisconsin challenges the court of appeals decision reversing the conviction of Tyrone Booker (Booker) on two counts of exposing a child to harmful materials, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.11 (2003-04). [1] The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was not…”
State v. Booker, 2005 WI App 182 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Stuckey, 2013 WI App 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wis. Stat. § 948.11(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Lala, 2009 WI App 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
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.