State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Raymond Clausen, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed Clausen's conviction for home improvement fraud under Wis. Adm. Code Ag 110.02(7)(b), holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in giving a jury instruction requiring timely notice to the buyer of the reasons for delay, because the notice requirement of subsection (7)(c) is implicit in (7)(b) when the two are construed in pari materia. The court held the instruction did not broaden the charged offense and did not violate Clausen's due process rights to notice and to prepare a defense, and it resolved the raised issue whether sec. 100.26(3) requires proof of intent by reference to its negative answer in its companion decision in Stepniewski. Justice Abrahamson dissented, arguing the majority read the notice requirement into (7)(b) without any textual basis and would treat (7)(b) and (7)(c) as defining two separate offenses.