Wisconsin v. Mitchell

HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE ( for the Majority): This is a review of a published decision adjudging that Mitchell intentionally selected the battery victim because of the victim's race in violation of the hate crimes penalty enhancer. Mitchell challenged the constitutionality and the court of appeals held that the statute was constitutional. The sole issue before the court is the constitutionality of the "hate crimes" statute. We hold that the statute violates the First Amendment and is thus unconstitutional.

The facts are not in dispute. On October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys was gathered. Todd Mitchell, nineteen at the time, was one of the older members of the group. Some of the group were at one point discussing a scene from the movie "Mississippi Burning" where a white man beat a young black boy who was praying.

Approximately ten members of the group moved outdoors, still talking about the movie. Mitchell asked the group: "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" A short time later, Gregory Reddick, a fourteen-year old white male, approached the apartment complex. Reddick said nothing to the group, and merely walked by on the other side of the street. Mitchell then said: "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him." Mitchell then counted to three and pointed the group in Reddick's direction.

The group ran towards Reddick, knocked him to the ground, beat him severely, and stole his "British Knights" tennis shoes. The police found Reddick unconscious a short while later. He remained in a coma for four days in the hospital, and the record indicates he suffered extensive injuries and possibly permanent brain damage. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. The jury separately found that Mitchell intentionally selected Reddick as the battery victim because of Reddick's race.

This case presents an issue, which has spawned a growing debate in this country: the constitutionality of legislation that seeks to address hate crimes. Numerous articles have been published concerning the issue, some applauding hate crimes statutes and some vigorously in opposition. Individuals and organizations traditionally allied behind the same agenda have separated on the issue of the legitimacy of hate crimes statutes.

The response to reports of bias related crime has been significant. Nearly every state in the country has enacted some form of hate crime legislation. The Wisconsin legislature's response was to enact sec. 939.645, Stats., which enhances the potential penalty for a criminal actor if the state proves that the actor intentionally selected the victim because of the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

The hate crimes statute violates the First Amendment directly by punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought and violates the First Amendment indirectly by chilling free speech. [continue>