State v. Colton M., 875 N.W.2d 642

Juvenile Colton M., age 15, was charged with repeated sexual assault of the same child under Wis. Stat. § 948.025(1)(e) based on multiple incidents with another 15-year-old, D., between Feb.–June 2013.
Allegations: Colton bribed and coerced D. to engage in sexual activity on several visits, brought pornography, masturbated, and on the last occasion forced sexual contact; D. reported fear and refusal; Colton admitted multiple sexual contacts and offering a game for sex but denied force.
Colton moved to dismiss, arguing § 948.025(1)(e) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to a juvenile who could be both victim and offender, and that charging him (but not D.) violated equal protection.
The circuit court denied the motion, found Colton delinquent after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the remaining counts, and Colton appealed.
The court reviewed de novo whether the statute violated due process (vagueness) and equal protection as applied; it relied on the statute's elements requiring intentional touching for sexual arousal/gratification or humiliation.

Issue	Colton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Vagueness / due process: whether § 948.025(1)(e) gives fair notice and standards when both participants are under 16	Statute is vague as applied because a juvenile can be both victim and offender; no guidance for choosing whom to prosecute	Statute gives objective elements (intentional touching for arousal/ humiliation or degradation); fair notice and adjudicative standards exist	Statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied; Colton's due process claim fails
Equal protection: selective prosecution for charging Colton but not D.	Charging only Colton despite similar ages treats similarly situated juveniles differently without justification	Prosecutor had rational basis: evidence showed D. was coerced/unwilling, Colton was aggressor and had sexual-offense history; prosecutorial discretion allows selectivity	No equal protection violation; charging decision was rational and within discretion

State v. McGuire, 328 Wis. 2d 289 (2010) (standard of review and presumption of statute constitutionality)
State v. Courtney, 74 Wis. 2d 705 (1976) (vagueness test: fair notice and adequate standards for adjudication)
State v. Popanz, 112 Wis. 2d 166 (1983) (void-for-vagueness analysis for criminal statutes)
In re B.A.H., 845 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. 2014) (rejecting as-applied vagueness challenge where both parties were under 16)