Court Opinion

ID: 9659513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:48:33.643104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:09.087155
License: Public Domain

GARTZKE, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the mandate as to the sexual assault charge. I would reverse the kidnapping conviction. I find no evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant transported the victim to the place of the assault with the intent to secretly confine her, as required, for purposes of this case, by sec. 940.31(1) (a), Stats. He transported her, not with intent to confine but to assault her.
Transporting the victim to the place of the assault cannot meet the confinement element, for that would result in one element of the crime satisfying another element of the same crime.
A second-degree sexual assault may, as here, confine the person during the assault through the use or threat of force or violence, as required by sec. 940.225(2) (a), Stats. That “confinement” is incidental to another purpose, the assault. The confinement contemplated by the kidnapping statute, sec. 940.31(1) (a), Stats., must itself be the intended result.