Court Opinion

ID: 9851329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:10:44.418218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:53.492133
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting). I dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the circuit court properly excluded expert testimony on the stages of sleep, the effects of alcohol on sleep, the amount of stimulation needed to awaken someone from sleep, and that the research literature reveals no medically proven case of a person sleeping through sexual intercourse. This issue is separate and apart from the primary issue addressed in the majority opinion, the exclusion of the hypothetical question.
The charge here is having sexual contact with one who is asleep. The alleged victim testified that she was asleep during penetration and ejaculation and awakened only upon the defendant's withdrawal. The defense contends that the alleged victim was conscious during the entire act. It is inconceivable that the jury would find this defendant guilty if they believed that the alleged *279victim was not telling the entire truth about any component of the acts of penetration, ejaculation, and withdrawal. Thus, knowledge about the physiology of sleep was essential to the jury's conclusion.
Section 907.02, Stats., states:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
The Judicial Council Committee's Note to sec. 907.02, Stats., states that this section:
is an affirmative approach to the use of expert testimony predicated upon whether such testimony will assist the trier of the fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. With such a test expert testimony will usually be admissible and will only be excluded if superfluous and a waste of time." Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, 59 Wis. 2d R207.
Perhaps even more to the point, particularly because the majority opinion lays such heavy emphasis on the hypothetical opinion testimony that was excluded, is the Federal Advisory Committee's Note to the same section:
An intelligent evaluation of facts is often difficult or impossible without the application of some scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
Most of the literature assumes that experts testify only in the form of opinions. The assumption is logically unfounded. (This) rule accordingly recognizes that an expert on the stand may give a dissertation or exposition of scientific or other principles relevant to the case, leaving the trier of fact to apply *280them to the facts. Since much of the criticism of expert testimony has centered upon the hypothetical question, it seems wise to recognize that opinions are not indispensable and to encourage the use of expert testimony in nonopinion form when counsel believes the trier can itself draw the requisite inference. . . .
Whether the situation is a proper one for the use of expert testimony is to be determined on the basis of assisting the trier. 'There is no more certain test for determining when experts may be used than the common sense inquiry whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute.' Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 414, 418 (1952). Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, 59 Wis. 2d R207-R208.
Much of what a lay person "knows" about sleep is intuitive. Much of what is scientifically known about sleep is counter-intuitive. Dr. Paul A. Nausieda, M.D., is a recognized expert in the physiology of sleep with a substantial portion of his practice devoted to sleep disorders. His curriculum vitae of 23 pages was admitted without objection, and the circuit court judge stated that he was entirely satisfied that Dr. Nausieda was qualified as an expert. Dr. Nausieda was prepared to testify with respect to a number of counter intuitive facts about sleep:
— Moderate amounts of alcohol do not tend to make a person sleep better. To the contrary, alcohol tends to suppress REM sleep and make a person far more susceptible to waking up at night.
— The state of sleep does not render a person unaware of his or her environment. To the contrary, when a person is asleep, they are aware of the environment around them.
*281— The expectation of an awakening event such as an alarm clock ring or the cry of a baby does allow the person to be awakened more easily.
— Some types of sensory stimuli are greater than others and the expectation of sexual intercourse is a much greater stimuli than the sound of a baby crying or an alarm clock going off.
— In research there is no medical proof or proven case of a person sleeping through sexual intercourse.
These are scientific facts that the defense expert would have testified to for purposes of enlightening the jury on the subject of sleep. To many on the jury, these facts may well have been unknown. Many on the jury may well have believed, based upon their own intuitive knowledge, completely the opposite. The jury was entitled to be enlightened on the subject. The evidence was highly relevant on the issue of whether the alleged victim was asleep at the time of these acts.
Section 904.01, Stats., defines "relevant evidence" as "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." The majority excludes this evidence solely on the ground that it was not relevant. The majority is in error. The "existence of fact" here is the fact of sleep: was she or wasn't she asleep? Thus, the sole legal question presented is whether the expert's testimony on the above cited nature of sleep has any tendency to make the question of whether she was sleeping more or less probable. The majority, in one short paragraph, dismisses the defense's position by stating, " [l]ike the hypothetical question, it was irrelevant to this case." Majority op. at 274. Not one further word of explanation.
*282How is the evidence concerning sleep like the hypothetical question that was rejected? The issue of whether the hypothetical question should have been allowed rests on entirely different principles.
A perusal of the trial transcript reveals the extent to which the prosecution relied on these common misconceptions about sleep to convince the jury that the victim slept through these acts. In the opening statement the prosecutor stated: " [0]n Christmas day there was quite a bit of drinking . . . (The alleged victim) will tell you . . . the amount of drinking and eating that was going on ... there was wine and other alcoholic beverages being consumed before and during dinner and after dinner.... she went in and basically fell asleep. She was tired. She had been drinking. ..." Trial Transcript pp. 14-16. During direct examination, the following exchanges took place between the alleged victim and the prosecutor:
On page 28 of the Trial Transcript, Prosecutor's Question: "What were you drinking?"
Alleged Victim's Answer: "We had some Jack Daniels at one point and then wine later."
On page 34 of the Trial Transcript Prosecutor's Question: "When you say you fell asleep, how heavy a sleeper are you?"
Alleged Victim's Answer: "Very heavy sleeper."
Question: "Well, to what extent are you aware of what happens that you can hear things going on when you are asleep?"
Answer: "Virtually I don't."
During the closing arguments the prosecutor made the following remarks:
*283Page 94 of the Trial Transcript — "that's what the guts of this case is. Do you believe . . . [the alleged victim] told you the truth or do you believe she lied to you?"
Page 99 of the Trial Transcript — "she was tired, she had been drinking . . . This was a Christmas holiday, heavy meal and a lot of alcohol consumed."
Page 114 of the Trial Transcript — "How could a woman not know a penis is being put in her vagina? Because of sleep or combination of heavy food consumption, heavy alcohol consumption, whatever."."
And lastly, showing the prosecutor's reliance on the jurors' intuitive knowledge about sleep, the prosecutor stated: "I think we all — this is where we are asking you to use your common sense." Trial Transcript p. 114.
The problem, of course, is that the jurors' "common sense" in this case involving sleep may have been simply wrong. The expert could have given them scientific facts upon which to base their verdict. He was not allowed to testify. The prosecutor then relied upon those misconceptions to make his case.
This court has routinely, and correctly, allowed expert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome. See State v. Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d 315, 431 N.W.2d 165 (1988); State v. Jensen, 147 Wis. 2d 240, 432 N.W.2d 913 (1988). Testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome is allowed into evidence because, as stated in Robinson, it is a means of "disabusing the jury of some widely held misconceptions about sexual assault victims." Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d at 335. In the case at issue before this court, the defense attempted to put the scientific evidence regarding sleep and the effects of alcohol on sleep before the jury for the very same reasons we have allowed rape trauma evidence: it could disabuse the jury of some widely held misconceptions about sleep. These miscon*284ceptions include the effects of alcohol on sleep, the general awareness levels of a sleeping person, and what the expectation of sensory stimuli, particularly sexual stimuli, does to a sleeping person. These facts, including the fact that in research there is no medical proof or proven case of a person sleeping through sexual intercourse, should have been made available to the jury for at least two reasons: those members of the jury who held erroneous views would have been disabused of them, and those members, if any, of the jury who correctly intuited these facts would know they could rely upon them in their deliberations.
In Robinson, as here, one party attempted to take advantage of popularly held misconceptions. This court in Robinson correctly noted:
The expert testimony in this case was helpful to the jury because the defendant attempted to rebut the complainant's testimony by noting that she was not crying after the assault and that she was so composed she was able to write out her own statement at the police station. The defense attempted to capitalize on the misconception that all sexual assault victims are emotional following the assault. We conclude, therefore, that the witness's testimony in this case assisted the jury in understanding reactions with which it perhaps was not familiar. Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d at 335 (footnote omitted).
In the case at issue, of course, it was the State that attempted to capitalize on the misconceptions of the jurors concerning the effects of alcohol on sleep.
To say, as does the majority, that this evidence was not relevant is serious error. When the charge is having sexual contact with one who was asleep, it is difficult to imagine evidence that could be more relevant. I conclude that the error is constitutional in dimension. It denies *285the defendant the right to present a defense under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
'The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.' Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 (1988) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, (1967)).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice NATHAN S. HEFFERNAN joins in this dissent.