## Facts

- Richard Stepniewski, a home improvement contractor, was convicted in Wisconsin state court of twelve home improvement trade practice violations under Wis. Stat. §§ 100.20(2) and 100.26(3).
- Seven counts were based on his failure to specify contract starting and completion dates in writing; five counts were based on failure to complete projects for which dates had been specified.
- The evidence included multiple uncompleted projects, two instances where unfinished work left homes severely damaged by winter weather, and victim homeowners who were often elderly and retired.
- Ten homeowners paid down payments ranging from $500 to $4,000; only three down payments were returned.
- The trial court imposed multiple one-year terms (some consecutive, some concurrent) stayed for probation, plus a consecutive six-month habitual-criminal enhancement based on a prior felony theft-by-contractor conviction.
- Wisconsin appellate courts affirmed the convictions.
- Stepniewski sought federal habeas relief, arguing due process required proof of criminal intent; the district court granted the writ.
- Wisconsin officials appealed the habeas grant to the Seventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether due process forbids Wisconsin from imposing criminal liability for home improvement trade practice violations without requiring proof of mens rea.
2. Whether defining the offenses as strict liability improperly shifts the burden of proof or creates an unconstitutional presumption regarding intent.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief and left the state convictions intact.
- The court held that Wisconsin could constitutionally eliminate a mens rea element for these regulatory trade-practice offenses.
- The court concluded the statutory scheme did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant and did not employ an impermissible presumption.
- The state’s obligation remained to prove the prohibited conduct (the regulatory violations) beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court found adequate notice of the regulated requirements through the statute and accompanying administrative rules governing home improvement contracts.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may define certain regulatory or public-welfare offenses as strict liability without violating due process, particularly in commercial settings subject to detailed regulation.
- Due process burden-shifting concerns arise when a statute presumes an element (such as intent) or requires a defendant to disprove an element; they do not arise merely because intent is not an element of the offense.
- Strict-liability regulatory crimes are constitutionally permissible where the prohibited conduct is clearly specified and regulated actors have fair notice of compliance duties.
- In habeas review, the question is whether the state conviction rests on an unconstitutional rule (such as an impermissible presumption), not whether the defendant subjectively intended the prohibited outcome when intent is not an element.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Wisconsin’s home improvement trade practice violations could be punished as strict-liability offenses consistent with due process, because the state was required to prove the regulatory violations beyond a reasonable doubt and the statutory and regulatory scheme provided fair notice without employing unconstitutional presumptions or burden shifting.


Stepniewski v. Gagnon, 732 F.2d 567 (7th Cir. 1984)