## Facts

- Richard Stepniewski and Edward Malec operated a residential home-improvement business through Energy Control Systems, Inc. in Milwaukee County during 1978–79.
- Malec, as president and principal shareholder, managed company books, approved contracts, coordinated and sometimes performed work, and handled company funds.
- Stepniewski solicited customers, drafted contracts for the company, and addressed customer questions and complaints.
- The defendants entered into multiple home-improvement contracts that did not include written start and completion dates as required by state home-improvement trade regulations enforced through Wis. Stat. § 100.26(3).
- In some instances, even when completion dates were written, projects were not completed by those dates, and customers—often elderly or retired—suffered winter damage to their homes.
- In one transaction, Stella Richlen and her daughter contracted through Stepniewski and paid a $4,000 down payment that Malec deposited; no work was performed, and Malec later stated he had donated some of the money to the Boy Scouts without knowing how much belonged to the Richlens.
- After a bench trial, both defendants were convicted of multiple home-improvement trade practice violations under § 100.26(3); Malec was also convicted on theft-related counts under Wis. Stat. §§ 289.02(5) and 943.20(1)(b).

## Issues

1. Whether criminal prosecution under Wis. Stat. § 100.26(3) for home-improvement trade practice violations requires the State to prove intentional conduct for all charged circumstances of the violations.
2. Whether construing § 100.26(3) to permit conviction without proof of intent for all elements violates due process.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Malec’s theft-related convictions under Wis. Stat. §§ 289.02(5) and 943.20(1)(b).

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that § 100.26(3), as applied to the home-improvement trade practice regulations, creates a public-welfare regulatory offense for which the State need not prove intent for all charged circumstances of the violation.
- The court held that this construction does not violate due process because the legislature may impose enforceable compliance duties on those who choose to engage in regulated home-improvement contracting to protect consumers.
- Applying the deferential sufficiency standard, the court held the evidence was sufficient to uphold Malec’s theft-related convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Consumer-protection trade practice regulations may be enforced criminally as public-welfare offenses when the legislative purpose is public protection and effective compliance requires liability without proof of traditional mens rea for each element.
- Due process permits strict-liability-style enforcement in regulated activities where participants can reasonably be expected to know and comply with specified conduct requirements as a condition of doing business.
- Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed as a whole and rationally considered by the factfinder, it permits proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court treated home-improvement trade practice violations prosecuted under Wis. Stat. § 100.26(3) as public-welfare regulatory offenses not requiring proof of intent for all circumstances, rejected the due process challenge to that interpretation, and upheld Malec’s theft-related convictions as supported by sufficient evidence.


State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982)