Court Opinion

ID: 9706080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:31:08.36314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:18.978749
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
(concurring). I join in the majority opinion to the extent that it recognizes that the "public *364safety" exception articulated in Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis. 2d 223, 249, 424 N.W.2d 159, 170 (1988), applies in criminal cases, and that the supreme court, as the body that promulgated the rules of evidence, see In re the Promulgation of Rules of Evidence for the State of Wisconsin, 59 Wis. 2d R1 (1973), (not the legislature, as Schuster, 144 Wis. 2d at 251, 424 N.W.2d at 170, states erroneously), may interpret them consistent with common sense and with the common weal. I write separately to also emphasize that the privilege here gives way to permit evidentiary use in court of an out-of-court disclosure of a confidential communication that was about the patient's future intent and acts, not about events antedating the confidential communication and described in that communication. Cf. Rule 905.03(4)(a), Stats, (crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege).