Court Opinion

ID: 9669011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:36:36.368533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:15.795692
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 137. (concurring). I agree with the majority's decision. I write separately, however, because I would explicitly overrule State v. Wallerman, 203 Wis. 2d 158, 552 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1996), and State v. DeKeyser, 221 Wis. 2d 435, 585 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1998), and rely on Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), and State v. Alexander, 214 Wis. 2d 628, 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997). The majority implies that it is overruling Wallerman and DeKeyser at paragraph 118, but it does not do so explicitly. In fact, at paragraph 123, the majority suggests that it is only modifying those cases by stating, "We do not mean to imply that Wallerman stipulations *445are per se invalid, even in child sexual assault cases." I would overrule Wallerman and DeKeyser; thus, I respectfully concur."
¶ 138. I am authorized to state that Justices JON E WILCOX and DIANE S. SYKES join this concurrence.