Opinion ID: 1744801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard for reviewing the circuit court's ruling

Text: The court of appeals held that the circuit court declined to admit the evidence for two reasons: Section 904.04(2), Stats., did not apply to acts of people other than the defendant and that the evidence did not come within the exceptions of the statute. Upon reviewing the entire record, however, we find an additional reason enunciated by the circuit court: the evidence was irrelevant. In its first ruling on this evidence, the circuit court stated: I don't think there's any relevance much less worry about whether its prejudice effect would outweigh relevance but I don't think there's any relevance at all.... [1, 2] A circuit court has broad discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of proffered evidence. State v. Brecht, 143 Wis. 2d 297, 320, 421 N.W.2d 96 (1988). The determination of relevancy can never be an exact science because it necessarily involves the trial court's considered judgment whether a particular piece of evidence tends to establish a fact of consequence in a given set of circumstances. State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 344, 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983). A circuit court's discretionary decision will be upheld if it is made according to accepted legal standards in accordance with the facts of record.... State v. Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d 247, 257, 378 N.W.2d 272 (1985). No abuse of discretion will be found if a reasonable basis exists for the circuit court's determination. Id. The court of appeals' decision is void of any mention that the standard of review for the circuit court's ruling should be whether the circuit court abused its discretion. Rather, it appears the court of appeals reviewed the lower court's decision de novo and without deference. The court of appeals, therefore, applied an incorrect standard of review because the initial ruling made by the circuit court was based on the court's belief that the evidence was irrelevant. [3] We note that even if the two reasons identified by the court of appeals were the only basis for the circuit court's decision, there would still be an underlying question of relevancy. Implicit in any examination of a ruling made pursuant to sec. 904.04(2), Stats., is whether the evidence is relevant to the issues in the case. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d at 344. [4] The court of appeals noted that it is relevant for the defendant to present evidence that such other person committed the crime. Oberlander, 143 Wis. 2d at 836, citing Boyer v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 647, 660, 284 N.W.2d 30 (1979). In Boyer, however, this court held that statements made by a third party that he committed the crime in question were relevant in that case. Boyer, 91 Wis. 2d at 660. We find that evidence of other-alleged acts by a third party, as in this case, is distinguishable and therefore not per se relevant.