## Facts

- Zachary P. Stuckey was 18 years old when he met a 14-year-old girl (Jane Doe) through Facebook.
- Stuckey and Doe never met in person.
- During their electronic communications, Stuckey texted Doe a photograph of his penis (“sexting”).
- The State charged Stuckey with exposing his genitals to a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.10(1)(a).
- Stuckey moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the exposure statute applies only to face-to-face, in-person exposure and does not reach exposure accomplished by sending a digital image.
- The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Wis. Stat. § 948.10(1)(a) (“to expose genitals or pubic area to a child”) covers exposure accomplished by texting a photograph of one’s genitals to a child, or instead is limited to in-person exposure.
2. Whether applying § 948.10(1)(a) to electronic image transmission is unconstitutional because the statute does not require proof that the defendant knew the recipient was under 18.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that Wis. Stat. § 948.10(1)(a) is not limited to face-to-face exposure and may be applied to a defendant who sends a child an image of his exposed genitals for sexual arousal or gratification.
- The court rejected the circuit court’s conclusion that the statute is unconstitutional in this context due to the absence of a knowledge-of-age requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation starts with the text, read in context and given its common meaning; courts do not add limitations (such as a face-to-face requirement) that are not found in the statutory language.
- The word “expose,” as used in § 948.10(1)(a), can include making one’s genitals viewable to a child through electronic means, not only through physical proximity.
- A court should not treat a prior decision addressing different statutory text and different conduct (such as *State v. Weidner*) as creating a general constitutional bar to applying other child-sex statutes to internet or phone-based conduct.
- The absence of an express requirement that the defendant know the child’s age does not, by itself, make § 948.10(1)(a) unconstitutional as applied to sending a genital photograph to a minor for sexual purposes.

## Conclusion

*State v. Stuckey* held that Wisconsin’s exposure-to-a-child statute, Wis. Stat. § 948.10(1)(a), may be applied when an adult sends a minor a texted photograph of the adult’s genitals, and the court of appeals therefore reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of the exposure charge and remanded for further proceedings.


State v. Stuckey, 349 Wis. 2d 654, 837 N.W.2d 160 (2013)