State v. Matthew R. Steffes

¶ 34. (dissenting). In common parlance, Matthew Steffes, the defendant, and his co-conspirators set up a complicated *706scheme to steal from the telephone company. They intended to, and did, bilk the telephone company of what the telephone company sells — telephone services.

¶ 35. The defendant is not, however, guilty of a crime unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated the terms of a specific statute. Why? Because there are no common law crimes in Wisconsin.1 All crimes are statutorily defined.

¶ 36. The defendant in the present case was charged with, and found guilty…