Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 967.05 (2026)

Methods of prosecution

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
967.05967.05Methods of prosecution.
967.05(1)(1)A prosecution may be commenced by the filing of:
967.05(1)(a)(a) A complaint;
967.05(1)(b)(b) In the case of a corporation or limited liability company, an information;
967.05(1)(c)(c) An indictment.
967.05(2)(2)The trial of a misdemeanor action shall be upon a complaint.
967.05(3)(3)The trial of a felony action shall be upon an information.
967.05 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 291; 1993 a. 112.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10 (Wis. 2003).
State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 38× “74 (1) is rendered ambiguous in light of the language in Wis. Stat. §§ 967.05 (1) and 968.02(2), which both provide that a criminal complaint may commence a prosecution.”
State v. Smith, 388 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. 1986). · cites it 4× “Section 967.05(1), Stats., provides that a prosecution may be commenced by filing a complaint or an indictment.”
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020). “015 (2019); Wis. Stat. §967.05 (2015–2016); Wyo. Stat.”
State v. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “74(1) was ambiguous in light of Wis. Stat. §§ 967.05 (1) and 968.02(2), the court looked to the legislative history of § 939.”
State v. Olexa, 402 N.W.2d 733 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “The action was commenced pursuant to the methods prescribed by sec. 967.05(1), Stats. 1 Therefore, all the requisites of personal jurisdiction were satisfied.”
State v. Williams, 2016 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “ecute, Webster's Third New International Law Dictionary (1993) ("[p]rosecute" means "to institute legal proceedings against; esp: to accuse of some crime or breach of law or to pursue for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law in due legal form before a legal…”
Matter of Van Riper, 25 B.R. 972 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1982). · cites it 2× “Wis.Stat. § 967.05(1) (1979-80). The statutes provide no other means by which a criminal proceeding is commenced.”
State v. White, 295 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. 1980). “Sec. 967.05, Stats. A complaint to be valid must contain “.”
State v. Jennings, 2002 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 17× “The other relevant statutes proposed by the State that allegedly create the ambiguity are Wis. Stat. §§ 967.05 (1) and 968.02(2). Section 967.”
Fredrick Lee Pharm v. Sherman Hatcher & Attorney Gen. of the State of Wisconsin, 984 F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1993). “05; see also Wis.Stat. § 967.05 (“the trial of a felony action shall be upon an information”).”
State v. McKinney, 483 N.W.2d 595 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “8 Section 967.05(1), Stats. 9 Section 968.02(1), Stats.”
State v. Corvino, 2016 WI App 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “For instance, Wis. Stat. § 967.05 (1) provides that a prosecution may be commenced by the filing of: "(a) A complaint; (b) In the case of a corporation or limited liability company, an information; (c) An indictment.”
— Wis. Stat. § 967.05(1) — 6 cases
State v. Smith, 388 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. 1986). “Section 967.05(1), Stats., provides that a prosecution may be commenced by filing a complaint or an indictment.”
State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10 (Wis. 2003). “74 (1) is rendered ambiguous in light of the language in Wis. Stat. §§ 967.05 (1) and 968.02(2), which both provide that a criminal complaint may commence a prosecution.”
State v. Olexa, 402 N.W.2d 733 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The action was commenced pursuant to the methods prescribed by sec. 967.05(1), Stats. 1 Therefore, all the requisites of personal jurisdiction were satisfied.”
Matter of Van Riper, 25 B.R. 972 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1982). “Wis.Stat. § 967.05(1) (1979-80). The statutes provide no other means by which a criminal proceeding is commenced.”
State v. McKinney, 483 N.W.2d 595 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “8 Section 967.05(1), Stats. 9 Section 968.02(1), Stats.”
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.