Court Opinion

ID: 9690814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:46:14.159714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:22.474023
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 41. (dissenting). The majority reaches a desired result through an undesirable analysis. I acknowledge that this is heinous conduct and good public policy would indicate that this conduct should be criminalized.
¶ 42. The majority believes that § 940.225(3) clearly covers sexual assault of a corpse. It concludes that the language of the statute "is clear on its face." Majority op., ¶ 37. It determines that "a reasonably well-informed person would understand the statute to prohibit sexual intercourse with a dead person." Id.
¶ 43. Unlike the majority, I conclude that the circuit court judge and the court of appeals judges here are "reasonably well-informed" persons. They unanimously concluded that § 940.225 does not prohibit sexual intercourse with a corpse. They determined (1) that the language of the statute was ambiguous and, (2) that when the legislature enacted § 940.225(3), it did not intend that the statute cover the conduct here.1 I agree.
*464I
¶ 44. The majority explains that we accepted review in this case to decide whether Wis. Stat. § 940.225 criminalizes sexual intercourse with a corpse when the defendant did not cause its death. Majority op., ¶ 20. The engine that drives the majority's analysis is its belief that the language of the statute is "plain." It makes that assertion over and over again in the opinion. See id., ¶¶ 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37.
¶ 45. To begin, it is always suspicious to me when an opinion asserts that the meaning is plain and then proceeds to spend a multitude of pages explaining it. It is as though the lengthy explanation belies the assertion. If it is so plain, why is the explanation so complex and lengthy?
¶ 46. My suspicions are well founded when you examine the analysis. Let's start by looking at the text of the statute that the majority says is so plain. Wis. Stat. § 940.225 provides in relevant part:
(3) Third Degree Sexual Assault. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person without the consent of that person is guilty of a Class G felony. Whoever has sexual contact in the manner described in sub. (5)(b)2. or 3. with a person without the consent of that person is guilty of a Class G felony.
(4) Consent. "Consent", as used in this section, means words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact. . . .
(7) Death of Victim. This section applies whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse.
(Emphasis added.)
*465¶ 47. Looking at subsection (4), it is not at all "plain" how to apply the concept of consent to cases involving corpses. I don't think a corpse can give consent.
¶ 48. Subsection (4) provides a definition of consent — "words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact." That definition cannot apply to a corpse.
¶ 49. The majority, however, concludes that consent is an issue in this case. Apparently, as an element of the offense, the majority would have the jury determine whether the corpse consented to intercourse. According to the majority, consent is an element that is "simple to prove." Majority op., ¶ 26.
¶ 50. I find it unlikely that the legislature intended consent to be an element of a crime involving the sexual assault of a corpse. Under the majority's interpretation, prosecuting attorneys will now have to prove that element beyond reasonable doubt. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000).
¶ 51. Another reason to doubt the majority's claim that the statute is "plain" is that the majority's interpretation renders subsection (7) superfluous. As noted above, the majority's view is that sexual assault of a corpse is proscribed by § 940.225(3) and that the consent element is merely "simple to prove" in the case of a corpse. Majority op., ¶¶ 25-27. If the majority is correct, however, there would be no need for subsection (7) in the statute.2 The majority's interpretation therefore violates the principle of statutory construction that "meaning should be given to every word, clause and *466sentence in the statute, and a construction which would make part of the statute superfluous should be avoided wherever possible." Hutson v. State Pers. Comm'n, 2003 WI 97, ¶ 49, 263 Wis. 2d 612, 655 N.W.2d 212.
¶ 52. The language of the statute is thus far from "plain." Under the majority's "plain" meaning interpretation, prosecutors must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the corpse did not consent to intercourse. This makes no sense to me and I cannot imagine that it is what the legislature intended.
II
¶ 53. The legislative history of § 940.225 indicates that subsection (7) was enacted to address cases in which the prosecutor could not prove whether the victim of a sexual assault was alive or dead at the time of the assault. Subsection (7) was created by 1985 Wis. Act 134, which passed the legislature in February 1986.
¶ 54. The drafting records for the bill include a drafter's note articulating the problem that the act was intended to address. The note states "Problem — don't want prosecution to fail because the DA has to prove that the victim was alive at the time the [sexual assault] took place." It further states a desire to "Have [a] statute so that DA does not have to prove that victim was alive or dead." Legislative Reference Bureau drafting file for 1985 Wis. Act 134.
¶ 55. Further, the history indicates that a case involving murder and sexual assault prompted the legislation. Just prior to the time that 1985 Wis. Act 134 was enacted, the court of appeals decided State v. Holt, 128 Wis. 2d 110, 382 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1985). The *467defendant in Holt was charged with sexual assault and murder. He argued that he could not be convicted of sexual assault because of insufficient evidence that the victim was alive at the time of the sexual assault. Id. at 121. The court of appeals determined that in a rape-murder case where the sequence of events cannot be proved, the jury may, but is not required to, infer that the victim was alive during the assault. Id.
¶ 56. The notes regarding the legislation indicate that it was intended to solve a single problem: prosecuting sexual assault where it is unclear whether the victim was alive at the time of the assault. Nothing in the legislative history indicates that the legislature intended Wis. Stat. § 940.225 to operate as a necrophilia statute.3
¶ 57. The language of the statute is far from "plain." The majority's interpretation requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a corpse did not consent, and it renders subsection (7) superfluous, neither of which were intended by the legislature. Likewise, the legislative history indicates that the legislature intended § 940.225(7) to apply to cases involving murder and sexual assault, and not to cases of necrophilia. I therefore respectfully dissent.
¶ 58. I am authorized to state that Justice LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. joins this dissent.

 We have previously determined that when courts reach contradictory interpretations of a statute, it "is indicative of ambiguity." Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2006 WI 89, ¶ 19, 293 Wis. 2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258 (citing Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Public Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 202 Wis. 2d 214, 222, 550 N.W.2d 96 (1996)).

 The majority focuses on whether applying Wis. Stat. § 940.225 to corpses renders subsection (3) or the element of *466consent superfluous. Majority op., ¶ 27. It fails to address the argument that applying the statute to corpses renders subsection (7) superfluous.

 I also note that the legislature has expressly included necrophilia in the definition of "sexual conduct" in Wisconsin's obscenity statutes. Wisconsin Stat. § 944.21(2)(e) states " '[s]exual conduct' means the commission of any of the following: . .. necrophilia." This statutory language establishes that the legislature is aware of the conduct that constitutes necrophilia, has proscribed it as part of the obscenity statute, and has chosen not to proscribe it outside of the obscenity context.