Court Opinion

ID: 9719230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:46:13.034894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:05.322869
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting in part, concurring in part). I agree with the law and reasoning expressed in the dissenting opinion that the counts contained in the Information must be based upon evidence produced at the preliminary examination. However, the dissent would allow only one of the counts to stand, and *473it is that conclusion to which I object. I conclude that there is evidence in the preliminary examination to support three of the counts in the Information. Accordingly, I concur with the result of the majority opinion with respect to three of the counts but not its reasoning, and join the dissent with respect to two of the counts.
The dissent, which would allow only one of the counts to stand, is based on a faulty premise. That premise is that the state introduced evidence at the preliminary examination of only one crime.11 have reviewed the *474transcript of the preliminary examination. It is clear from the transcript that the state introduced evidence of three crimes: count I (sexual intercourse involving penis *475to anus), count II (sexual intercourse involving penis to vagina, and count IV (involving touching of the victim's breasts).
The dissenting opinion, as the basis for its conclusion that the facts produced at the preliminary examination support only one crime, points to a concession made by the Assistant District Attorney at a hearing held before the court following the preliminary examination. See dissenting op. at 459 n. 1. There is no question that the dissent accurately depicts the concession. However, the concession has no support in the record.
The assistant district attorney "conceded" that the defendant's statement relied on at the preliminary examination makes no reference to any of the other charges set forth in the Information other than the one act of anal intercourse. That is simply not the fact. Either the assistant district attorney misunderstood the judge's question, or simply did not recall the facts of record — an understandable lapse given the workload of the Dane county District Attorney's office. In any event, the concession has no support in the record and we are not, and should not be, bound by it.
*476The record reflects that the detective testified to admissions of the defendant regarding counts I, II, and IV. Each admission testified to was a cursory statement by the defendant. No additional evidence was produced regarding those counts. With respect to counts III and V, there was not one iota of evidence produced to support them. Therefore, I would allow counts I, II, and IV to stand and dismiss counts III and V.
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE NATHAN HEFFERNAN joins in this opinion.

The dissent insists that only count I is supported in the record and that "the record supports the assistant district attorney's and the circuit court's conclusion that no evidence adduced at the preliminary examination supports counts II through V." Dissenting op. at 459 n. 1.
The dissent is incorrect. The only evidence of record supporting the bind-over is from the preliminary examination, and the evidence supports counts I, II, and IV.
The transcript of the preliminary examination consists of 20 pages. The entire testimony relating to counts I, II, and IV is relatively short. It consists of the testimony of Detective Robert M. Lombardo of the Madison Police Department. There is no testimony with respect to counts III and V.
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
Q. What did he say happened after that?
A. He stated that he unbuttoned her blouse and then took off her white pants completely off and took her underpants down to, I believe her knee or ankles, I can't quite remember, one or the other.
She had a bra on, he pushed that up and he stated that he kissed her breasts and felt her breasts and prior to that, he had taken off his blue jeans and underpants.
[Author's note: the above supports count IV. Sexual Contact (touching breast)]
Q. Did he describe to you any further sexual contact that he had with [B.K.]?
A. Yes, he did.
*474Q. What did he tell you happened?
A. He stated that he laid down with her on his bed and that he started to attempt to have intercourse with her and his penis was against her pubic or vaginal area but she immediately said no, she didn't want to do it, that she was afraid of getting pregnant and getting AIDS.
[Author's note: The above supports count II. Sexual intercourse (penis to vagina)]
Q. Did he say anything further happened?
A. He stated that when she made this statement to him, that he turned her on her stomach and started to perform sex anally.
Q. When he said that to you, did he mean that he put his penis in her anus?
A. I specifically asked'him that.
Q. What did he say when you asked him that?
A. He said he did.
Q. Did he describe to you anything else that occurred?
A. He stated that he was having a hard time having relations with her.
Q. What do you mean by having relations with her?
A. With his penis inside her anally and grabbed a bottle of Palmolive dish soap that had been on the floor and put it on her buttocks area and anus area to help lubricate his penis for penetration.
Q. Did he describe to you anything further that occurred between himself and [B.K.]?
A. He stated that she started crying and doesn't — he didn't recall if she told him to stop or not, but that he did reach a climax and that after he removed himself, his penis from her, she was emotionally upset and crying a lot and he didn't know exactly why this was occurring.
[Author's note: The above supports count I. Sexual intercourse (penis to anus)]
*475Q. Did he describe any other sexual contact between himself and [B.K.]?
A. There wasn't any more that he stated he had.
Q. Thank you. I have nothing further.
The cross examination of Detective Lombardo with respect to these counts consisted of a few short repetitive questions regarding counts I, II, and IV.
The dissent's position that this record supports count I, but not counts II and IV, is logically inconsistent. Either this testimony supports counts I, II, and IV, or it supports none. And a concession made by the assistant district attorney in response to a question from a judge who did not preside at the preliminary examination cannot change that.