Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2010AP1798-CR State v. Strong

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 1, 2011//

2010AP1798-CR State v. Strong

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 1, 2011//

Listen to this article

Improvised Explosive Devices
Sufficiency of the evidence

A device can qualify as an improvised explosive device, even if it is flammable rather than explosive, and the detonator does not work.

“While Wis. Stat. § 943.05 distinguishes between combustible and explosive materials, we do not agree that the two terms are always mutually exclusive. By distinguishing between combustible and explosive materials in § 943.05, the legislature recognized that some materials are combustible but not explosive. Therefore, § 943.05 prohibits placement of both combustible and explosive materials in order to encompass those materials that are strictly combustible. However, this does not mean that a material cannot be both combustible and explosive. Thus, the distinction between combustible and explosive materials in § 943.05 does not preclude us from using a definition of ‘explosive’ that includes some combustible materials.”
“Wis. Stat. § 941.31(2)(a) states that an improvised explosive device must contain ‘a means of detonating the explosive material, directly, remotely, or with a timer either present or readily capable of being inserted or attached[.]’ (Emphasis added.) Thus, a device qualifies as an improvised explosive even if it lacks a functioning detonator, as long as a means of detonation can be readily inserted or attached. Strong’s devices meet this requirement because Strong could have made the detonators operable with the insertion of two readily available parts. As the State points out, ‘It would have been no problem to insert batteries in the remote controller, and to attach a resistant conductor to the exposed ends of the electrical cord. The police did that simply by putting an aluminum foil chewing gum wrapper on the wires.’”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1798-CR State v. Strong

Dist. III, Outagamie County, McGinnis, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Grunder, Steven D., Madison; For Respondent: Balistreri, Thomas J., Madison; Schneider, Carrie A., Appleton

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests