## Facts

- Rory A. Kuenzi and Robby D. Kuenzi allegedly encountered a large group of deer while operating snowmobiles on a trail in Waupaca County, Wisconsin.
- The complaints alleged they charged the deer with snowmobiles, ramming and running over at least five.
- One defendant allegedly rode on a downed deer and performed a “burn out,” ripping open the deer’s abdomen.
- The complaints alleged they tied a strap around the neck of another downed live deer, dragged it to a tree, and secured it there; the deer was later found dead.
- A sheriff’s deputy, acting on a tip, found five severely injured deer near the trail; four were dead and the fifth was euthanized.
- Physical evidence at the scene allegedly indicated snowmobiles were used to injure and kill the deer.
- The State charged both defendants with multiple counts of mistreatment of animals (cruelty) under Wis. Stat. § 951.02.
- The circuit courts dismissed, accepting defendants’ argument that the conduct was “hunting” regulated exclusively under Wis. Stat. ch. 29.

## Issues

1. Whether “animal” in Wis. Stat. ch. 951 includes non-captive wild animals such as free-roaming deer.
2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 951.02 may be applied to conduct involving the taking of wild animals that is also regulated by Wis. Stat. ch. 29.
3. Whether Wis. Stat. § 951.015(1)’s exception for activities “authorized by ch. 29” bars prosecution under § 951.02 when the conduct is characterized as hunting.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal orders and remanded with directions to reinstate the charges.
- The court held that “animal” under ch. 951 includes wild animals, not only domestic or captive animals.
- The court held that ch. 29’s hunting and wildlife regulations do not categorically preclude applying § 951.02 to cruel mistreatment of wild animals.
- The court interpreted § 951.015(1) as a limited exception for activities actually “authorized” under ch. 29, not a blanket exclusion for all conduct that could be labeled hunting.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory text controls: absent an express limitation, “animal” in Wisconsin’s cruelty chapter is read broadly to include non-captive wild animals.
- Overlapping statutory schemes are construed to operate together when possible; a detailed regulatory chapter on hunting does not, by itself, displace a general anti-cruelty prohibition.
- An exemption for conduct “authorized” by another chapter applies only to conduct that is affirmatively permitted under that chapter; it does not immunize gratuitously cruel conduct merely because it occurs during an attempted taking of wildlife.
- On review of a dismissal for failure to state an offense, courts accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and test whether those allegations satisfy the charged statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that Wisconsin’s animal-cruelty statute reaches cruel treatment of wild deer and is not barred simply because the conduct can be described as hunting; because the complaints alleged cruel mistreatment, the dismissals were reversed and the charges reinstated.


State v. Kuenzi, 332 Wis. 2d 297, 796 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011)