State v. Jadowski
680 N.W.2d 810, 2004 WI 68, 272 Wis. 2d 418 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wisconsin's statutory rape law, Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2), is a strict liability offense with respect to the victim's age. A defendant's reasonable but mistaken belief about the victim's age is not a defense, even if that mistake was induced by the victim's intentional misrepresentation.
Facts:
- On April 3, 2002, Todd M. Jadowski, age 35, had sexual intercourse with a female victim.
- The victim was born on September 13, 1986, making her 15 years old and approximately five and a half months shy of her 16th birthday at the time of the incident.
- Jadowski alleged that the victim was a chronic runaway.
- Jadowski claimed the victim used what appeared to be a state-issued identification card indicating she was 19 years old.
- Jadowski asserted that the victim told him and others that she was 19 years old.
- Jadowski also maintained that the victim claimed in his presence to be old enough to work as an exotic dancer.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wisconsin filed a criminal complaint against Todd M. Jadowski in the Circuit Court for Sheboygan County, the trial court of first instance.
- Prior to trial, Jadowski filed a motion to admit evidence that the victim had intentionally misrepresented her age.
- The circuit court granted Jadowski's motion.
- The State filed a motion for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied.
- The State, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal the circuit court's non-final order to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The court of appeals certified the cause to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the state's highest court, to decide the legal questions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wisconsin's statutory rape law, which precludes the defense of mistake as to the victim's age, also preclude an affirmative defense based on the victim's intentional misrepresentation of age, and if so, does this preclusion violate the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson
Yes, Wisconsin's statutory rape law precludes an affirmative defense based on the victim's intentional misrepresentation of age, and No, this preclusion does not violate the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court holds that Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) is a strict liability crime regarding the victim's age, meaning the defendant's knowledge or belief about the victim's age is irrelevant to guilt. The court's reasoning is based on several factors. First, the plain text of related statutes, specifically Wis. Stat. § 939.23(6) and § 939.43(2), explicitly eliminates knowledge of a minor's age as an element of the crime and bars mistake of age as a defense. The defendant's attempt to distinguish 'fraud' from 'mistake' is unpersuasive, as the fraud would only induce a mistake, which is not a defense. Second, the legislature included a 'reasonable cause to believe' defense in other child-related statutes but omitted it from § 948.02(2), indicating a deliberate choice to impose strict liability. Third, the legislative history and public policy purpose of the statute are to protect children by placing the entire risk of determining age upon the adult. Constitutionally, the statute is not vague because it clearly prohibits sexual intercourse with a person under 16. It does not violate substantive due process because the long history of statutory rape as a strict liability offense demonstrates that it does not offend a 'principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.'
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes Wisconsin's second-degree sexual assault of a child statute as a true strict liability offense concerning the victim's age. The court explicitly rejects any judicially created exception for a defendant who was allegedly deceived by a minor, thereby closing a potential loophole. The ruling reinforces the strong legislative policy of prioritizing child protection over an individual defendant's claim of moral blamelessness, placing the full onus on adults to ascertain, with certainty, the age of their sexual partners. Future defendants in Wisconsin are unequivocally barred from introducing evidence that they were mistaken or defrauded about a victim's age to contest guilt.
