| Court | WI Court of Appeals, 2nd District |
| Facts: | The defendant arranged for the sale (to undercover LEOs) of a $400 outboard
motor, stolen by his co-defendant, knowing that the motor to be sold
was stolen.
The complaint was dismissed because the wording of the statute statute defining theft (§ 943.20(1)(a)) is ambiguous as to whether "taking" of the stolen item is a requisite element of the crime. The defendant was not a participant in the taking itself. The trial court ruled that the statute required that a defendant commit "taking" as well as at least one of a list of supplemental activities (carrying away, transferring, concealing, etc.) in order to be found guilty of theft. The State appealed, advancing the theory that "takes and carries away" was just one member of the list of activities that should be considered qualifying elements of theft |
| Posture: | Dismissed at initial trial, appealed by the State. |
| Issue: | Whether or not assisting on the sale of property which the defendant knows to be stolen constitutes being party to theft. Specifically, does the statutary definition of theft require "taking," in addition to one or more other activities, in order to make a case of theft? |
| Holding: | Reversed, and remanded for further proceedings under the clarified rule. |
| Rule: | The list of elements qualifying a defendant for a charge of theft should be read in the disjunctive, not the conjunctive. |
| Reasoning: | Appeals to history of the statute as the product of a consolidation effort:
|
| Dicta: | None, really |