State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 843 N.W.2d 29

Supreme Court reviews unpublished Court of Appeals reversal in Badzinski sexual assault case.
Defendant was charged with first-degree sexual assault of a child based on a 1995–1998 period; the act occurred at a family gathering in the grandparents’ home.
Jury asked during deliberations whether it needed to unanimously agree on the assault location; circuit court answered “yes” for the location but “no” for the laundry room.
Evidence included A.R.B.’s testimony of sexual contact in the laundry room and several witnesses who suggested the assault could have occurred elsewhere.
Trial instructions emphasized credibility and required reliance on evidence; jury ultimately found Badzinski guilty.
Court reverses Court of Appeals and holds unanimity is required only for essential elements; location is not an essential element in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does jury unanimity require agreement on the exact location of the offense?	State contends location is not essential; unanimity on elements suffices.	Badzinski argues location is essential; lack of unanimous location undermines verdict.	No; unanimity on elements only.
Did the court's response to the jury mislead about the victim’s credibility and allow speculation beyond the evidence?	Response did not mislead; allowed reasonable inferences.	Response was ambiguous and likely to undermine credibility of the victim’s testimony.	No; due process not violated.

State v. Tulley, 248 Wis. 2d 505, 635 N.W.2d 807 (Ct. App. 2001) (unanimity on ultimate issue; not on all details)
State v. Holland, 91 Wis. 2d 134, 280 N.W.2d 288 (1979) (unanimity on essential elements required)
State v. Derango, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833 (2000) (unanimity when multiple modes may exist)
State v. Giwosky, 109 Wis. 2d 446, 326 N.W.2d 232 (1982) (unanimity framework for essential elements)
Manson v. State, 101 Wis.2d 412, 304 N.W.2d 729 (1981) (analyzes unanimity when multiple modes of crime)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (unanimity focuses on necessary element, not peripheral details)
State v. Lomagro, 113 Wis.2d 582, 355 N.W.2d 583 (1983) (context for element-based unanimity)
State v. Kuntz, 160 Wis.2d 722, 467 N.W.2d 531 (1991) (due process and jury instruction standards)
State v. Zelenka, 130 Wis.2d 34, 387 N.W.2d 55 (1986) (due process and jury instruction standards)
State v. Burris, 333 Wis.2d 87, 797 N.W.2d 430 (2011) (ambiguous instruction and due process assessment)
State v. Lohmeier, 205 Wis.2d 183, 556 N.W.2d 90 (1996) (consider instruction as a whole; defenses and burden)
State v. Balistreri, 106 Wis.2d 741, 317 N.W.2d 493 (1982) (credibility and weighing testimony)
Johnson v. State, 55 Wis.2d 144, 197 N.W.2d 760 (1972) (reasoning about reasonable inferences)
Kimbrough, 246 Wis.2d 648, 630 N.W.2d 752 (2001) (credibility and weigh of evidence)
Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990) (reasonable inferences from evidence)