COURT BANS NECRO SEX IN STATE

LAURA J. TENNESSEN, 1988 - 2006

Jurist Rules Lack of Consent Easy to Prove when Victim is a Corpse

By Michael Horne

The tentacles of the activist Wisconsin Supreme Court reached out and strangled yet another legislative prerogative Wednesday, July 9th, 2008, when it ruled that sex with a corpse is illegal in this state, overruling the free-and-easy decision rendered in by Grant County Circuit Court Judge George S. Curry [UW '72] in the case of State v. Alexander Caleb Grunke 2006CF000140 and related cases against his brother Nicholas Owen Grunke and cousin Dustin Blake Radke. The three attempted to disinter the body of Laura J. Tennessen shortly after her death at 20 in August 2006 for the purposes of having sexual activity with her corpse. They selected Tennessen after looking at her obituary photo. [See above.]

Curry's opinion that state statutes do not include a prohibition against sex with a corpse was unanimously upheld by an appeals court panel in State v. Grunke et al, 2007 WI App. 198. Judges Charles P. Dykman [UW '65], Margaret J. Vergeront [UW '75] and Paul B. Higginbotham [UW '85] ruled that Judge Curry acted properly because the "legislature did not create WIS STAT 940.225(7) as a general necrophilia statute." Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen [UW '90] appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the decision.

In the decision, Justice Patience Drake Roggensack [UW '80}announced, "In order to achieve a conviction for third degree sexual assault under Wis. Stat. 940.225 (3), the state must still prove the element 'without consent' beyond a reasonable doubt; that endeavor is subject to a simple proof when the victim is a corpse." She said it was plain that the law meant to prohibit corpse sex, and proceeded to explain her position for nearly 40 paragraphs, and used "plain" in paragraphs 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36 and 37.

Not so fast! replied dissenting justices Louis B. Butler Jr. [UW '77] and Ann Walsh Bradley [[UW '76], who wrote, "to begin, it is always suspicious to me when an opinion asserts that the meaning is plain and then proceeds to spend a multitude of pages explaining it. It is as though the lengthy explanation belies the assertion. If it is so plain, why is the explanation so complex and lengthy?"
Butler and Bradley said "the majority reaches the desired result through an undesirable analysis," and suggested the legislature did not intend to criminalize necrophilia in the statute.
Alas, the legislature need not bother writing an anti necrophilia law now that the Supreme Court has expanded its powers and done so itself. Is this good for society? Perhaps, since we cannot tell for certain if our badly divided legislature could summon the political will to speak out against the sexual violation of corpses.

HOW ARE THE COUSINS DOING THESE DAYS?
Dustin B. Radke now lives on High Street in Mineral Point where the cops keep hassling him giving him speeding tickets, tickets for not wearing his seatbelt, tickets for not registering his car and all sorts of stuff like for possession of THC and drug paraphernalia. Alexander Caleb Grunke hasn't been in any trouble since the necrophilia arrest, and neither has his brother Nicholas Owen Grunke. It cannot be determined by press time whether they've been laid lately or if, indeed, they have any desire for living flesh. At least by now they should know what "R. I. P." means the next time they try to select a mate from under a tombstone.


FUN FACT! Did you notice that every judge in this matter has a University of Wisconsin Law School degree? Imagine how the arguments and decisions might have been different if Jesuit-trained Marquette Law School graduates had been in their places! They'd still be arguing "what is sex?"
--Michael Horne