Opinion ID: 487448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was Kirby Wrongly Decided?

Text: 37 The Attorney General also maintains that the Kirby court misconstrued the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in State v. Carli, supra. According to the Attorney General, Carli found that mayhem contained an element of great bodily harm on the facts of that case. Since Carli, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected the facts presented test in favor of a legal elements only test for determining lesser included offenses. Randolph v. State, 83 Wis.2d 630, 266 N.W.2d 334 (1978). Thus, the Attorney General concludes that Kirby was wrongly decided. 38 This argument need not detain us long. It is not our place to determine whether Kirby was correctly decided. Our sole task is to ascertain the applicable Wisconsin law, and Kirby was the law in effect at the time of Cole's offense. We note, however, that the Kirby court expressly disclaimed any reliance on the facts presented test, stating that it was mindful of the admonition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that we are only to be concerned with 'the legal elements of the crimes, and not with the particular facts established in the case at hand.'  Kirby, 272 N.W.2d at 117. Moreover, the court did not rely solely on Carli, but independently reached the conclusion that proof of great bodily harm was required. 6 39