State v. Matthew R. Steffes, 832 N.W.2d 101

Steffes was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit theft by fraud of property > $10,000 for defrauding AT&T through a prison-based scheme involving fictitious business names and stolen personal information.
The scheme operated over about 18 months, creating about 60 fraudulent phone numbers and resulting in 322 calls totaling 6,562 minutes and AT&T losses of $28,061.41.
AT&T’s engineer testified that the company powers its network with electricity stored and converted for use, which was central to the property question.
Steffes challenged (1) whether fictitious names and stolen IDs constitute a false representation under § 943.20(1)(d) and (2) whether AT&T’s applied electricity constitutes “property” under § 943.20(2)(b).
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals’ decision upholding the theft-by-fraud convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fictitious information constitutes a false representation	Steffes argues no express promise to pay is required	State contends false representations include non-promissory deceptions	False representations established; includes non-promise conduct
Whether applied electricity is “property” under § 943.20(2)(b)	Steffes contends services/telecommunications are not property	AT&T’s electricity used to power its network is property under the statute	Applied electricity is property; conspiracy valid under theft-by-fraud statute

State v. Meado, 163 Wis.2d 789 (Ct. App. 1991) (interpretation of § 943.20(l)(d) and title/ownership notions)
State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493 (1990) (framework for whether false representations suffice to convict)
Sartin v. State, 44 Wis.2d 138 (1969) (value consideration in theft; impact on penalties)
White v. State, 85 Wis.2d 485 (1978) (value determination needed for felony sentencing)
Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis.2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation to avoid absurd results)