Wisconsin Court of Appeals holds school zone enhancer constitutional.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

The crime of mayhem includes injuring the victim's forehead, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held on Jan. 17. The court also held, addressing another issue of first impression, that the school zone enhancer, sec. 939.632, is constitutional. According to the complaint, in 2004, Leonard J. Quintana entered the bedroom of his ex-wife Shannon and struck her forehead with the claw end of a hammer approximately three times. She suffered a skull fracture and a laceration from above her eyebrow to behind her ear. As a result of the skull fracture, small pieces of bone tore the brain lining, allowing spinal fluid to leak into the wound. Shannon also sustained an intracranial injury with air and blood in the brain, an injury that carries potential for death. Shannon suffers from recurrent headaches and memory deficits. The initial criminal complaint changed Quintana with attempted first-degree intentional homicide with domestic violence and dangerous weapon enhancers. After amendments to the complaint, Quintana ultimately faced charges of solicitation of first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless injury, aggravated battery, and mayhem. The mayhem and aggravated battery charges were alleged to have been committed in a school zone. Quintana moved to dismiss the mayhem charge, and the school zone penalty enhancers. Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent K. Howard granted the motions, concluding that the mayhem statute is inapplicable to forehead injuries, and that the school zone enhancers are unconstitutional as applied. The state appealed, and the court of appeals reversed in a decision by Judge Michael W. Hoover. Mayhem The court first held that the mayhem statute encompasses Quintana's alleged conduct. Section 940.21 provides, "Whoever, with intent to disable or disfigure another, cuts or mutilates the tongue, eye, ear, nose, lip, limb or other bodily member of another is guilty of a Class C felony." At issue is whether the forehead is an "other bodily member" under the statute. The court concluded it was, applying general rules of statutory construction. Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, "when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed." Black's Law Dictionary 556 (8th ed. 2004). The court rejected Quintana's argument that the forehead is excluded, because it is not similar to the other listed...