Packers' Josh Jacobs charged with two misdemeanors over May incident in Wisconsin
Josh Jacobs, 28, faces misdemeanor battery and criminal damage to property charges in Brown County, Wisconsin, over a May incident; he is presumed innocent and the case is undecided.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 4:16 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 5:52 p.m. ET
Packers' Josh Jacobs Charged with Misdemeanor Battery
Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs, 28, has been charged with misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor criminal damage to property, according to reports from wsaw.com, wsau.com, and fox6now.com. The charges stem from a May incident in Brown County, Wisconsin. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no plea has been entered and no trial has occurred.
The government's allegations are reported differently by the sources. According to wsaw.com, the government claims Jacobs threw his girlfriend to the ground during an argument over cellphones, causing her to strike her head, and later damaged her phone. According to wsau.com, the government claims Jacobs committed misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor criminal damage to property stemming from his May arrest in Wisconsin. According to fox6now.com, the government claims Jacobs committed misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor criminal damage to property related to a May incident.
The maximum penalties are also reported with some variation. According to wsau.com, misdemeanor battery carries a maximum fine of $10,000 and nine months in jail; misdemeanor criminal damage to property carries the same penalties; damage exceeding $2,500 may elevate the offense to a Class I felony, carrying up to 3.5 years in prison. According to wsaw.com, the maximum is up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. According to wsau.com, the maximum is nine months in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.
The Hobart-Lawrence Police Department investigated the case, and the Brown County District Attorney's Office filed the charges, according to wsaw.com and fox6now.com. Mr. Jacobs is presumed innocent of these charges.
Aug 27, 2026, 4:16 p.m. ETFirst report
Packers' Josh Jacobs Charged with Misdemeanor Battery
Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs has been charged with misdemeanor battery and criminal damage to property, according to the Brown County District Attorney's Office, as reported by WSAW. The charges stem from an incident on August 27, 2026, in which the government alleges Jacobs threw his girlfriend to the ground during an argument over cellphones, causing her to strike her head, and later damaged her phone.
The Hobart-Lawrence Police Department investigated the case. Jacobs is presumed innocent of these charges. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no trial date has been set. If convicted, he faces up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Packers star Josh Jacobs now criminally charged in connection to May incidentfox6now.com
- Packers running back Josh Jacobs charged with misdemeanor battery in Brown County domestic incidentwsaw.com
- Packers Running Back Josh Jacobs Formally Charged With Two Misdemeanors Over Domestic Disputewsau.com
- Packers RB Josh Jacobs formally charged in connection with May arrestwsau.com
- Josh Jacobs faces two misdemeanors chargers after strangulation arrest and Packers prepare for any scenariokotaradio.com
- NFL star Josh Jacobs facing charges of battery, criminal damage to property from previous arrestwesternmassnews.com
- Prosecutor says he has portion of Josh Jacobs’ domestic incident with ex-girlfriend on videokotaradio.com
- Packers RB Josh Jacobs charged, explaining the charges | FOX6 Milwaukeefox6now.com
- Packers' Josh Jacobs placed on commissioner's exempt listfox6now.com
- Initial court appearance scheduled for Packers RB Josh Jacobs1039wvbo.com
- Packers' Josh Jacobs charged with battery, due in court Thursdayfox6now.com
Revision history
- Version 610 Sept 2026, 02:52current
Added the May 23 incident date and May 26 arrest from 1039wvbo.com, the conflicting charge-announcement dates, the Brown County District Attorney attribution, and the competing statutory maximums; removed the unsupported 'chargers' reference and the unsourced 'case has not been decided' phrasing.
- Version 531 Aug 2026, 11:52
Updated to reflect the published status and added the date of the announcement as a range (Aug 27-31) per source conflict.
- Version 430 Aug 2026, 02:15
Updated to reflect the formal charges and added the range of reported penalties.
- Version 330 Aug 2026, 01:52
Updated to reflect the formal charges and the range of reported penalties, with attribution to each outlet.
- Version 228 Aug 2026, 01:52
Updated to include conflicting accounts of alleged conduct, district attorney office naming, and statutory maximum penalties as reported by multiple sources.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 20:23
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 20:16current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.