Title: State v. Iran Shuttlesworth
Citation: 2002 WI 3
Docket Number: 1999AP002980-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 18, 2002

2002 WI 3 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
99-2980-CR 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Iran Shuttlesworth,  
 
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  241 Wis. 2d 573, 624 N.W.2d 421 
(Ct. App. 2001-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 18, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
November 9, 2001   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Diane S. Sykes   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., and SYKES, J., did not 
participate.  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
Mia Sefarbi and Law Offices of Steven M. Epstein, Milwaukee, and 
oral argument by Mia Sefarbi. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Diane 
M. Welsh, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was 
James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
2002 WI 3 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound 
volume 
of 
the 
official 
reports.   
No.  99-2980-CR  
(L.C. No. 
96 CF 960542) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Iran Shuttlesworth,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 18, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Petitioner 
Iran 
Shuttlesworth 
(Shuttlesworth) appeals from a court of appeals' decision, 
affirming both his judgment of conviction on two counts of 
kidnapping and four counts of first-degree sexual assault 
following a jury trial and an order denying his postconviction 
motion.  We accepted review on the issue of whether the circuit 
court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding DNA match 
evidence without requiring supporting probability statistics.  
Shuttlesworth contends that state statute and governing case law 
require the State to submit probability statistics in support of 
DNA evidence, and because the State failed to provide the 
No. 
99-2980-CR   
 
2 
 
necessary statistical predicate, the DNA match evidence was 
inadmissible.   
¶2 
In 
particular, 
Shuttlesworth 
relies 
on 
Wis. Stat. § 972.11(5)(b)(1997-98), which provides: 
 
In 
any 
criminal 
action 
or 
proceeding, 
the 
evidence 
of 
a 
deoxyribonucleic 
acid 
profile 
is 
admissible to prove or disprove the identity of any 
person if the party seeking to introduce evidence of 
the profile complies with all of the following: 
 
. . . .  
 
2.  If the other party so requests at least 30 
days before the date set for trial, or at any time if 
a date has not been set for trial, provides the other 
party within 15 days after receiving the request with 
all of the following: 
 
. . . .  
 
b.  The laboratory protocols and procedures 
followed. 
Shuttlesworth claims that the State violated this statutory 
provision by failing to disclose at the time of trial the 
protocol and procedures that allowed its expert to conclude, to 
a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that Shuttlesworth 
was the source of the DNA sample at issue.  
¶3 
Wisconsin Stat. § 972.11(5) was repealed by 2001 Wis. 
Act 16, § 4003t, effective August 31, 2001.  Because this case 
necessitates an interpretation of a statute that is now 
repealed, we conclude that the appeal in this case was 
improvidently granted, and dismissal is therefore appropriate.   
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.   
No. 
99-2980-CR   
 
3 
 
¶4 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE and DIANE S. 
SYKES, J., did not participate.   
No. 
99-2980-CR   
 
 
 
1