Skip to content
Bills from the 2015–16 session

Assembly Bill 1022

The presumption of reasonableness in a criminal or civil case involving self-defense. (FE)

Stopped in committee

It never got a ⁠, so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Apr 7, 2016

  2. Committee, stopped here

    Stopped here. No public hearing was held.

  3. Assembly vote, not reached

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 25, 2016: “Fiscal estimate received”

It never got a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Rules. See every bill that never got a hearing this session.

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, in general, a person who uses force in self-defense or in the defense of another person may not be convicted of a crime stemming from that use of force. This law applies only when: 1) the amount of force used is reasonable; and 2) the person uses that force to prevent or stop what he or she reasonably believes is an unlawful interference with himself or herself or another person, such as the crime of battery.

Under current law, a factfinder in a criminal case involving a person's use of force intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily harm must presume that the person reasonably believed the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already unlawfully and forcefully entered, the dwelling, motor vehicle, or, in the case of a business owner or operator, place of business of the person who used the force; 2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and 3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred. Current law prohibits a court from considering whether the person had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used the force.

Read the full summary

Under current law, the presumption does not apply if: 1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or 2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a public safety worker (or was or should have been known to be a public safety worker) and was entering the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.

Current law also confers immunity from civil liability for a person who uses force that is intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already forcibly entered, the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business of the person who used the force; 2) the person who used the force was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and 3) the person who used the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

For purposes of civil immunity, a person is not presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary if: 1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or 2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a public safety worker (or was or should have been known to be a public safety worker) and was entering the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.

Under current law, if a court finds that person who is sued in civil court is immune from liability because he or she used the force reasonably, the person is entitled to attorney fees, court costs, compensation for income loss, and other expenses the person incurred to defend himself or herself against the civil action.

This bill repeals the presumption of reasonableness in criminal and civil actions, and removes the provisions awarding attorney fees, court costs, compensation for income loss, and other expenses incurred by a person who is sued civilly for using force that is intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Who's behind it

Mandela Barnes, a Democrat, is its ⁠.

1 more lawmaker ⁠.

See all 2 names

Author (1)

Signed on in support (1)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

What happened

  1. Apr 25, 2016

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  2. Apr 13, 2016

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  3. Apr 7, 2016

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  4. Apr 7, 2016

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Apr 7, 2016 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representative Barnes; cosponsored by Senator C. Larson

  2. Apr 7, 2016 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Rules

  3. Apr 13, 2016 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

  4. Apr 25, 2016 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate