The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on July 3, 2025 in *State v. Joan L. Stetzer*, a case that examines whether domestic violence can serve as a complete defense to drunk driving charges. The decision addresses the complex intersection of domestic violence law and DUI statutes, potentially setting important precedent for abuse victims who drive while intoxicated to escape dangerous situations.
Joan Stetzer had endured years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse from her husband. During one particularly violent attack, Stetzer fled in her vehicle despite having consumed alcohol, heading for safety at the couple's lake house 15 minutes away. Before she could reach her destination, police stopped and arrested her. She was ultimately charged with operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration as a second offense, in violation of Wisconsin Statute Section 346.63(1)(b).
At trial, Stetzer stipulated that her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit but argued she was acting under circumstances of coercion, which provides a complete defense under Wisconsin Statutes Sections 939.45(1) and 939.46(1). This defense allows a defendant to escape liability if a threat by another person caused them to reasonably believe that their conduct was the only means of preventing imminent death or great bodily harm.
Stetzer's legal team argued that her husband's violent attack constituted such a threat, and that she reasonably believed driving to the lake house was the only means of preventing imminent death or great bodily harm. The coercion defense, if successful, would completely absolve her of the DUI charges despite her admitted intoxication.
After a bench trial, the circuit court in Waukesha County concluded that the elements of the coercion defense were met when Stetzer initially decided to drive away from her home. Circuit Court Judge Paul Bugenhagen Jr. agreed with Stetzer that she "definitely had to get out" of the dangerous situation at her home.
The case proceeded through Wisconsin's appellate system before reaching the state's highest court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision features a majority opinion delivered by Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet, joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Brian Hagedorn, and Janet Protasiewicz. Justice Annette Ziegler joined the majority opinion except for certain paragraphs, and also filed a separate concurring opinion. Chief Justice Jill Karofsky filed a dissenting opinion, indicating the court was not unanimous in its reasoning.
The legal questions presented in *Stetzer* reflect the challenging circumstances faced by domestic violence victims who may need to make split-second decisions to protect themselves from immediate harm. The case highlights the tension between public safety laws designed to prevent drunk driving and the recognition that abuse victims may face impossible choices when their lives are threatened.
Wisconsin's coercion defense requires defendants to prove several elements: that another person threatened them, that the threat caused them to reasonably believe their conduct was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, and that they had no reasonable alternative. Courts must balance these requirements against the strong public policy interest in preventing impaired driving.
The decision could have significant implications for how courts across Wisconsin handle similar cases involving domestic violence victims. If the court affirmed the trial court's finding that Stetzer met the elements of the coercion defense, it would provide legal precedent for other abuse victims who drive while intoxicated to escape violent situations.
Domestic violence advocates have long argued that abuse victims should not face additional criminal penalties when they take necessary steps to protect themselves from immediate harm. The case represents a test of whether Wisconsin's legal system will recognize the unique circumstances faced by domestic violence survivors.
The ruling also reflects broader legal trends examining how traditional criminal defenses apply to domestic violence situations. Courts nationwide have grappled with similar questions about how to balance public safety concerns with recognition of the desperate circumstances that may drive abuse victims to break laws while seeking safety.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in *Stetzer* will likely influence how prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges approach cases involving domestic violence victims charged with crimes committed while fleeing abuse. The case underscores the complex legal and ethical questions that arise when criminal law intersects with domestic violence situations.
The court's handling of this case may also inform legislative discussions about whether existing criminal defenses adequately protect domestic violence victims or whether new statutory protections are needed. As domestic violence awareness continues to grow, legal systems face pressure to adapt traditional criminal law concepts to better account for the realities faced by abuse survivors.