State v. Stepniewski

I dissent. I conclude that the defendants’ convictions of violations of sec. 100.26(3), Stats. 1977, cannot be sustained because an element of the crime, namely the defendants’ state of mind whether called mens rea, criminal intent, guilty knowledge or scienter, was not proved.

The defendants were charged under sec. 100.26(3), Stats. 1977, with failing to obey regulations promulgated *280by the Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection.1 Sec. 100.26(3) specifies that “[a]ny person . . . who intentionally refuses, neglects or fails to obey any regulation made under . . . s. 100.20,…