Court Opinion

ID: 9668017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:00:23.257253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:42.426814
License: Public Domain

BABLITCH, J.
(concurring). The State of Wisconsin (State) alleges that Terri Williquette (Williquette) left her two children in the care of her husband on numerous occasions, and that her children told her about his abuse on these numerous occasions. She continued to leave them with her husband otherwise unattended; they continued to be abused. I agree with the court of appeals that this conduct, if proved, constitutes aiding and abetting the crime of child abuse.
*263Under sec. 939.05(2)(b), Stats., the elements of aiding and abetting are: (1) the defendant undertook conduct that as a matter of objective fact aided another in the execution of a crime; and (2) the defendant consciously desired or intended that his conduct would yield such assistance. State v. Hecht, 116 Wis. 2d 605, 619-20, 342 N.W. 2d 721 (1984).
A reasonable jury could find from the fact that Williquette's conduct in continuing to leave her children in the care of her husband, notwithstanding the children’s recitations of abuse, as a matter of objective fact aided in the abuse of the children and that she consciously desired or intended that her conduct would yield such assistance.
I do not join the majority opinion, because I do not agree that the language of the statute, given these alleged facts, allows the State, to charge Williquette as a direct actor, pursuant to sec. 940.201, Stats. I agree with the dissent that the statute requires a direct nexus between the act and the injury, which is not present here. The State does not allege that Williquette was the direct actor; it concedes that her husband was the person who directly caused injury to the children.
Because I conclude that Williquette can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting this crime, I cannot join the dissent, but rather concur with the majority's affir-mance of the decision of the court of appeals.