State v. Brian S. Kempainen, 862 N.W.2d 587

Victim L.T. reported two incidents of sexual contact by her stepfather, Brian Kempainen: one between Aug. 1–Dec. 1, 1997 (she was 8) and another between Mar. 1–June 15, 2001 (she was 11–12).
L.T. disclosed the abuse in October 2012; Kempainen was arrested Dec. 19, 2012; complaint filed Dec. 21, 2012; information filed Dec. 26, 2012.
Kempainen moved to dismiss complaint and information, arguing the multi‑month charging periods were too vague to permit him to plead and prepare a defense (alibi concerns).
The circuit court granted dismissal, relying on R.A.R. to decline consideration of some notice factors; the State appealed.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the charging periods gave adequate notice; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: courts may consider all seven Fawcett factors (and other relevant factors) when assessing notice in child sexual‑assault cases, and Kempainen received adequate notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kempainen)	Held
Whether courts may consider all seven Fawcett factors (or must limit the first three to cases where defendant asserts prosecutorial diligence could have produced narrower dates)	All seven factors (and other relevant factors) are appropriate tools for the Holesome totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry	R.A.R. should prevent consideration of the first three Fawcett factors unless defendant claims the State could have obtained more definite dates through diligent efforts	Court held Fawcett's seven factors (and other relevant factors) are all permissible; R.A.R.'s limitation is overruled to the extent it conflicts with Fawcett/Holesome.
Whether charging periods (Aug–Dec 1997; Mar–June 2001) gave Kempainen constitutionally adequate notice to plead and prepare a defense	Charging periods were reasonably definite in a child‑victim context; vagueness goes to credibility, not legality; details about time of day and surrounding circumstances supply adequate notice	Multi‑month ranges are too vague and impair ability to mount alibi defense; dismissal required	Court held the complaint/information provided sufficient notice under Holesome/Fawcett; factors (age of victim, surrounding circumstances, passage of time, ability to particularize time of day, etc.) weigh in favor of adequacy; complaint reinstated.

State v. Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d 244 (Ct. App. 1988) (articulated seven "reasonableness" factors for notice in child sexual‑assault cases)
Holesome v. State, 40 Wis. 2d 95 (1968) (due‑process test: complaint must allow defendant to plead and prepare a defense)
State v. R.A.R., 148 Wis. 2d 408 (Ct. App. 1988) (court of appeals decision limiting consideration of first three Fawcett factors; partially overruled here)
People v. Morris, 461 N.E.2d 1256 (N.Y. 1984) (New York adoption of a reasonableness/totality test for time‑frame allegations)
State v. McGuire, 328 Wis. 2d 289 (2010) (discussion of statutes of limitations and prejudice from pre‑indictment delay)