Opinion ID: 487448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Kirby Decision

Text: 22 To place Kirby in context, it should first be noted that Kirby is only the second Wisconsin appellate opinion reported during the last century to consider the elements of the crime of mayhem. (The first was State v. Carli, 2 Wis.2d 429, 86 N.W.2d 434 (1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 907, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L.Ed.2d 1157 (1958)). The reason for the paucity of case law, as the state explained at oral argument, is that mayhem has become something of an anachronism in Wisconsin's criminal law, largely superseded by more modern crimes. See, e.g., Wis.Stats. Sec. 940.19 (battery and aggravated battery); Wis.Stats. Sec. 940.23 (injury by conduct regardless of life); Wis.Stats. Sec. 940.24 (injury by negligent use of weapons); Wis.Stats. Sec. 941.30 (endangering safety by conduct regardless of life). Thus, prosecutors rarely charge offenders with mayhem anymore. Nevertheless, cases still arise, perhaps because mayhem, unlike its modern counterparts which carry lesser penalties, is a class B felony carrying a sentence of up to twenty years in prison. Wis.Stats. Sec. 939.50(3)(b). 2 23 In Kirby, the defendant was charged with mayhem for participating in an incident in which a woman was tied to a bed and tortured for a five-hour period. At trial, the evidence showed that the victim had been beaten with curtain rods, an electrical cord, and a belt. Her assailants had thrown lighted cigarettes and matches on her. Kirby's own acts included pouring salt and shaving lotion on her back and legs and attempting to shave her head after her hair was cut by others. 272 N.W.2d at 114. The victim suffered a fractured rib, burns, and scars on her legs in addition to psychological injuries requiring hospitalization. 24 At the close of the evidence, the trial court, finding this evidence insufficient to support a mayhem conviction, dismissed the charge. Instead, the trial court submitted to the jury charges of injury by conduct regardless of life under Wis.Stats. Sec. 940.23 (hereinafter injury) and endangering safety by conduct regardless of life under Wis.Stats. Sec. 941.30 (hereinafter endangering safety). The jury convicted the defendant only on the endangering safety charge. 25 On appeal, Kirby contended that the trial court had erred in submitting the injury and endangering safety charges to the jury because these charges were not lesser included offenses of mayhem. 3 In particular, Kirby maintained that injury required proof of great bodily harm and that such proof was not required for a mayhem conviction. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals disagreed. Relying on State v. Carli, supra, the court held that the cuts or mutilates element of mayhem necessarily includes the infliction of great bodily harm. The court reasoned as follows: 26 Although at common law mayhem required proof of mutilation or dismemberment that affected one's combat ability, the statutory enactments creating the crime have not required such extensive mutilation or disfigurement. Nonetheless, cuts or mutilates as used in the statute requires proof of an act of greater severity than a mere nick with a knife. We believe that cutting or mutilation, a statutory element of mayhem, requires an injury that constitutes great bodily harm as interpreted in LaBarge [v. State, 74 Wis.2d 327, 246 N.W.2d 794 (1976) ], and required as an element of injury by conduct regardless of life. 27 272 N.W.2d at 117 (footnotes omitted). Because an injury conviction did not require proof of any fact in addition to those required for a mayhem conviction, the court concluded that injury was properly submitted to the jury. Moreover, since endangering safety was a lesser included offense of injury, it followed that endangering safety was also properly submitted. Id. 28 The next question was whether the evidence could be reasonably viewed as support[ing] conviction of the lesser offense while leaving reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt of the charged offense. Id. Reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the jury could reasonably have determined that the state had not carried its burden on the mayhem and injury charges, but that it had carried its burden on the endangering safety charge. Accordingly, the court concluded that the submission of the lesser included offenses was proper and it affirmed the conviction. 272 N.W.2d at 117-18. 29