State v. Thomas W. Grimm, 2002 WI App 242
For Grimm: Daniel W. Hildebrand
Issue/Holding: The rationale of State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 646 N.W.2d 287, and State v. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359, which permit enticement charges where a fictitious online “victim” is thought by the defendant to be a child, is equally applicable to a charge of second-degree sexual assault of a child. Moreover, such a charge doesn’t run afoul of the rule that an a strict liability offense can’t support a charge of attempt. ¶¶10-14. (The court implies vaguely, but doesn’t explicitly say that this is so because sexual contact (a form of sexual assault) doescontain an intent element. ¶¶11-13. Nor does the court say that attempt must therefore be charged as contact, rather than intercourse, though that might be an implication.)
