Wis. Stat. § 948.07
Whoever, with intent to commit any of the following acts, causes or attempts to cause any child who has not attained the age of 18 years to go into any vehicle, building, room or secluded place is guilty of a Class D felony:
Wis. Stat. § 948.07
The penalty scheme of sub. (3) is not unconstitutionally irrational. That the statute, unlike sub. (1), did not distinguish between victims 16 years old or older and other children victims is a matter for the legislature. State v. Hanson, 182 Wis. 2d 481, 513 N.W.2d 700 (Ct. App. 1994). This section includes the attempted crime, as well as the completed crime, and cannot be combined with the general attempt statute. State v. DeRango, 229 Wis. 2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0642. The purposes of s. 948.05, child exploitation, and this section, child enticement, are distinct, and two distinct crimes are envisioned by the statutes. Charging both for the same act was not multiplicitous. State v. DeRango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, 98-0642. This section creates one crime with multiple modes of commission. The alternate modes of commission are not so dissimilar as to implicate fundamental fairness. As such, a defendant is not entitled to a unanimity instruction. State v. DeRango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, 98-0642. One alternate mode of commission of the crime under this section is attempt to cause a child to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place. The principles of attempt in s. 939.32 apply. That the intended victims were fictitious constituted an extraneous fact beyond the defendant's control that prevented successful enticement while not excusing the attempt to entice. State v. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359, 00-2684. Attempted child enticement may be charged when the intervening extraneous factor that makes the offense an attempted rather than completed crime is that unbeknownst to the defendant, the "victim" is an adult government agent posing as a child. The 1st amendment is not implicated by the application of the child enticement statute to child enticements initiated over the internet as the statute regulates conduct, not speech. State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 647 N.W.2d 287, 00-2841. Acts alleged in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as attempts to have a child get into a vehicle or go into a hotel room or a secluded place are not required to prove attempted child enticement. Going to meet the child at a planned time and place is a sufficient, unequivocal act in furtherance of the criminal objective when earlier conversations provide reasonable inferences of that criminal objective. State v. Grimm, 2002 WI App 242, 258 Wis. 2d 166, 653 N.W.2d 284, 01-0138. While an attempt cannot lie to an offense that does not carry the element of specific intent and the statutory definition of sexual intercourse does not formally include an intent element, the act of sexual intercourse is necessarily an intentional act. As such, the crime of attempted sexual assault of a child by means of sexual intercourse is a crime. State v. Brienzo, 2003 WI App 203, 267 Wis. 2d 349, 671 N.W.2d 700, 01-1362. Like the child enticement statute in Robins, the child sexual assault statute regulates conduct, not speech. An attempt to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a child initiated or carried out in part by means of language does not make an attempted child sexual assault charge susceptible of 1st amendment scrutiny. State v. Brienzo, 2003 WI App 203, 267 Wis. 2d 349, 671 N.W.2d 700. This section requires only that the defendant cause the child to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with the intent to engage in illicit conduct, but not that the child necessarily be first separated from the public. State v. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, 272 Wis. 2d 837, 681 N.W.2d 272, 03-1710. "Secluded" in this section is not a technical term. In the context of child enticement, a secluded place would include any place that provides the enticer an opportunity to remove the child from within the general public's view to a location where any intended sexual conduct is less likely to be detected by the public. A place need not even be screened or hidden or remote if some other aspect of the place lowers the likelihood of detection. All the statute requires is that the place provides a means by which to exclude the child and reduce the risk of detection. State v. Pask, 2010 WI App 53, 324 Wis. 2d 555, 781 N.W.2d 751, 09-0559. Sexual contact is not an element of the crime of child enticement under this section. Rather, the six enumerated prohibited intents are modes of commission. At least one mode of commission must be referenced during a plea colloquy, but the terms comprising each mode need not be specifically defined. The crime of child enticement does not require proof of the actual, physical action contemplated by the mode of commission, only that the defendant acted to entice a child while intending to do one of the prohibited acts. The act of enticement is the crime, not the underlying intended sexual or other misconduct. State v. Hendricks, 2018 WI 15, 379 Wis. 2d 549, 906 N.W.2d 666, 15-2429.