Opinion ID: 1744801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the circuit court abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence

Text: [5] Finding that the court of appeals should have reviewed the circuit judge's decision on an abuse of discretion standard does not end the inquiry. The circuit court's decision will be upheld concerning evidentiary issues unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. This court will not find an abuse of discretion if there is a reasonable basis for the trial court's determination. State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d 723, 727, 324 N.W.2d 426 (1982). There should be evidence that the circuit court undertook a reasonable inquiry and examination of the facts when it made its decision. Id. 108 Wis. 2d at 728. Thus, in order to determine whether the circuit court abused its discretion, we must determine if there is a reasonable basis for its conclusion that the other-acts evidence relating to Mark Neu was irrelevant and inadmissible. [6] Evidence must be relevant for it to be admissible. Section 904.02, Stats. [4] Relevant evidence is defined in sec. 904.01, which provides: Definition of relevant evidence. Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. [R]elevancy of evidence regarding other conduct depends upon its nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime and upon the elements which are in dispute and are sought to be proved. State v. Sonnenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 159, 172, 344 N.W.2d 95 (1984). The circuit court concluded the other-acts evidence about Neu was irrelevant because the concession stand incident was too remote and had no connection with the Last Lap tavern in any way, shape or form. [7] Rejection of evidence because of remoteness rests in the [circuit] court's discretion. Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371, 386, 249 N.W.2d (1977). In determining a dispute concerning the relevancy of proffered evidence, the question to be resolved is as to whether there is a logical or rational connection between the fact which is sought to be proved and a matter of fact which has been an issue in the case. Id. citing 1 Jones, Evidence (4th Ed.), sec. 137. Evidence is irrelevant on remoteness grounds if the elapsed time is so great as to negative all rational or logical connection between the fact sought to be proved and the remote evidence offered in proof thereof. Id. In exercising its discretion, the circuit court must balance the remoteness in time against the uniqueness of the prior act of which the evidence is offered. Sanford v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 72, 81-82, 250 N.W.2d 348 (1977) quoting Hough v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 807, 815, n. 6, 235 N.W.2d 534 (1975). [8] We hold the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the other-acts evidence because it concluded the evidence was irrelevant. The circuit court articulated a reasonable explanation why it believed the evidence was irrelevant. After listening to arguments made by both parties, the circuit court found the evidence was too remote and had no connection with the arson charged in this case. The circuit court based its decision on the proper facts and law governing the issue and stated its reasons for its holding. We also note that the circuit court did admit other evidence which supported Oberlander's theory that Neu committed the arson. Evidence that Neu threatened Oberlander, that Neu had cut the electrical wires to the tavern, and that Neu may have confessed to the arson to his own counsel was admitted. The circuit court implicitly concluded that this evidence was logically and rationally related to the arson. [9] Because we hold the circuit court's decision to exclude the concession stand evidence was not error, we need not, and do not, reach the other issues raised by the parties. The weighing of probative against prejudicial value of the evidence only occurs after the evidence is held to be relevant. See sec. 904.03, Stats. We also need not decide whether the circuit court correctly determined that sec. 904.04(2), Stats., was inapplicable to this case. As noted above, evidence admitted under sec. 904.04(2), must be relevant before it can be accepted. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d at 731. Consequently, we do not review the court of appeals' holding that sec. 904.04(2), is applicable to witnesses other than the defendant. The circuit court reasonably concluded that evidence of the concession stand incident was irrelevant. The circuit court's determination was made on the appropriate facts and valid law, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion. Consequently, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed. By the Court. The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.