Opinion ID: 2225342
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the prior sexual assault clearly occur?

Text: ¶ 45 Carter's offer of proof fails the first prong of the Pulizzano test because the alleged previous sexual assault against Cassandra did not clearly occur[ ]. See 155 Wis.2d at 656, 456 N.W.2d 325. To demonstrate that the previous assault clearly occurred, Carter's offer of proof `should state an evidentiary hypothesis underpinned by a sufficient statement of facts to warrant the conclusion or inference that the trier of fact is urged to adopt.' Id. at 652, 456 N.W.2d 325 (quoting Milenkovic v. State, 86 Wis.2d 272, 284, 272 N.W.2d 320 (Ct.App.1978)). The facts as presented do not warrant the conclusion that Cassandra was clearly sexually assaulted by her cousin. As for evidence of the sexual assault, we have only Carter's testimony and a videotaped interview with Cassandra in which she told Officer Koch that she had seen her cousin's penis. Neither Carter's testimony nor the videotaped interview sufficiently demonstrates that the previous sexual assault clearly occurred. ¶ 46 Carter testified that Cassandra pointed to his crotch and offered to help [him] make juice, explaining to him that she made juice with her cousin by pulling on his penis and getting him to ejaculate. Carter offered no corroborating testimony from Cassandra, Denise, or Cassandra's cousin. Furthermore, while he testified that a social worker and sheriff came over to the house and talked to Cassandra about the incident, Carter introduced no documentation to support his assertion that the incident had ever been reported to the police. The circuit court adjudged Carter not credible, and we uphold that finding because it is not clearly erroneous. See Thiel, 264 Wis.2d 571, ¶ 23, 665 N.W.2d 305. Given Carter's lack of credibility, this court cannot conclude from his testimony that the previous sexual assault clearly occurred. ¶ 47 In a videotaped interview taken after Carter was charged, Cassandra told Officer Koch that she had seen her cousin's penis. The parties agree on little else. At one point in the interview, Cassandra apparently referenced the making of drinks. According to Carter, she was referring to making juice with her cousin while his pants were down. The State, on the other hand, maintains that Cassandra's statement about making drinks was merely a reference to playing. The State contends that Cassandra's blank statement about seeing her cousin's penis was void of any sexual description: there is nothing that says that she touched him, that he touched her, that there was anything that was sexual in nature. Because the videotaped interview did not appear in the record before this court, we are left to rely on the parties' competing interpretations. As it was relayed to us, the videotaped interview is too insufficient to support the conclusion that the previous sexual assault clearly occurred. ¶ 48 Our conclusion that Carter's offer of proof fails the first prong of the Pulizzano test is enough to dispose of Carter's argument that evidence of the previous sexual assault is excepted from the rape shield law. See, e.g., Dunlap, 250 Wis.2d 466, ¶ 29, 640 N.W.2d 112 (recognizing that this court need not go further in applying the Pulizzano test after one of the five prongs is not satisfied). Nevertheless, we move on to discuss the second prong and further conclude that Carter's offer of proof fails to demonstrate that the previous sexual assault closely resemble[s] that of the present case. See Pulizzano, 155 Wis.2d at 656, 456 N.W.2d 325.