946.49 Bail jumping.

(1) Whoever, having been released from custody under ch. 969, intentionally fails to comply with the terms of his or her bond is:

(a) If the offense with which the person is charged is a misdemeanor, guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) If the offense with which the person is charged is a felony, guilty of a Class H felony.

(2) A witness for whom bail has been required under s. 969.01 (3) is guilty of a Class I felony for failure to appear as provided.

History: 1977 c. 173; 2001 a. 109.

Under sub. (1), a charge underlying a bail-jumping charge is not a lesser-included offense, and punishment for both does not offend double-jeopardy protection. State v. Nelson, 146 Wis. 2d 442, 432 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1988).

Conviction under this section resulting from the conviction for another crime committed while released on bail does not constitute double jeopardy. State v. West, 181 Wis. 2d 792, 510 N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993).

A defendant released without bail is not subject to a bond and cannot violate this section. State v. Dawson, 195 Wis. 2d 161, 536 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2570.

A court in sentencing a defendant for a violation of this section may take into account the underlying acts that resulted in the violation. State v. Schordie, 214 Wis. 2d 229, 570 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0071.

Charging a defendant with 2 counts of bail jumping when the defendant violated multiple conditions of a single bond was not multiplicitous. State v. Anderson, 219 Wis. 2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), 96-0087.

A positive urine test was sufficient to establish that the defendant intentionally violated the conditions of a bond prohibiting the use of illegal drugs. State v. Taylor, 226 Wis. 2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0962.

When the meaning and scope of a bond condition is at issue for purposes of determining whether there is the basis for a criminal charge, the threshold question is whether the bond condition itself covers the defendant's conduct in the case, and not whether the evidence plausibly establishes that the defendant believed that he or she was violating the condition. State v. Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, 238 Wis. 2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872, 99-2203.

When a bail jumping charge is premised upon the commission of a further crime, the jury must be properly instructed regarding the elements of that further crime. When a bail jumping charge is premised upon the commission of a lesser-included offense of the further crime, the jury must be properly instructed under the law of lesser-included offenses. State v. Henning, 2003 WI App 54, 261 Wis. 2d 664, 660 N.W.2d 698, 02-1287.

Reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 89, 273 Wis. 2d 352, 681 N.W.2d 871, 02-1287.

“Release" refers to the defendant posting the bond, be it signature or cash, and need not be accompanied by the defendant's physical departure from the jailhouse. Here, the defendant made bond on a signature bond by signing it, therefore committing himself to its conditions, although he did not post 2 required cash bonds. While not physically released, the defendant was subject to this section for violating the conditions of the signature bond. State v. Dewitt, 2008 WI App 134, 313 Wis. 2d 794, 758 N.W.2d 201, 07-2869.

The defendant's argument that his conviction on two bail-jumping counts was multiplicitous because the preliminary hearings at which he failed to appear were scheduled for the same time and he had signed only one bond for the two underlying cases failed because the counts were different in fact. Proof of notification and failure to appear in one case would not prove notification and failure to appear in the other, making the two charges different in nature and therefore different in fact. State v. Eaglefeathers, 2009 WI App 2, 316 Wis. 2d 152, 762 N.W.2d 690, 07-0845.