Court Opinion

ID: 9721287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:55:12.298093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.557077
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 86. (dissenting). I agree with the majority opinion on the first issue presented in this case — that the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to present evidence when the circuit court excluded evidence of the child victim's prior sexual contact with another child. I respectfully dissent, however, because on the second issue, the majority opinion ignores the rule that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to present irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible evidence. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, recently, the right to present evidence is subject to the rules of evidence, in order to ensure "that only reliable evidence is introduced at trial." United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308-309 (1998). I would conclude, therefore, that the defendant was not *540denied his constitutional right to present a defense when the circuit court exercised its discretion and excluded the testimony of the defendant's witness, Dr. Stonefeld.
¶ 87. The majority opinion reverses the court of appeals and, thus, also the circuit court's discretionary decision to exclude expert testimony from Dr. Stonefeld. The court of appeals' majority upheld the circuit court's discretionary decision because "the trial court used logical reasoning and based its decision on the facts in the record." State v. St. George, No. 00-2830-CR, unpublished slip op., ¶ 36 (Wis. Ct. App. June 5, 2001). In answering the constitutional questions, the majority seems to ignore the circuit court's bases for its decision to preclude the evidence. The circuit court relied on Wis. Stat. § 907.02, in determining that the testimony the defendant wished to offer from Dr. Stonefeld was inadmissible. The circuit court concluded that the evidence was not likely to help the jury arrive at a decision, since Dr. Stonefeld did not have the required experience or education on recantation and on the mechanics of interviewing in child sexual assault cases.
¶ 88. Unlike the majority, in answering the constitutional question of whether the evidentiary decision to exclude Dr. Stonefeld's testimony denied the defendant his constitutional right to present a defense, I would rely on the circuit court's discretionary decision, which had a reasonable basis in the record for its ruling. See State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶¶ 43, 49, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629 (acknowledging that questions of constitutional significance are reviewed without deference to the circuit court, but answering the constitutional questions based on the circuit court's discretion*541ary evidentiary decisions);1 State v. Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d 315, 330-332, 431 N.W.2d 165 (1988) (reviewing the circuit court's evidentiary decision under the abuse of discretion (now the erroneous exercise of discretion) standard, and then answering the constitutional question based on the upheld circuit court's evidentiary decision); see also Grube v. Daun, 213 Wis. 2d 533, 542, 570 N.W.2d 851 (1997) ("If a reasonable basis for the circuit court's ruling exists, we will not disturb it.").
¶ 89. It is well established that a defendant does not have the constitutional right to present any and all evidence in support of his claim. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973); Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶ 42 (" [Defendants cannot present irrelevant evidence."); Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d at 332; State v. Johnson, 118 Wis. 2d 472, 479, 348 N.W.2d 196 (1984) (the right to present relevant and competent evidence is the corollary to the right to present a defense). Furthermore, we have previously recognized that the circuit court is the proper arbiter of the admissibility of evidence, see Grube, 213 Wis. 2d at 542, and that this court reviews evidentiary decisions under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Id.; Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d at 332.
¶ 90. Although the majority opinion correctly notes that an evidentiary decision, including the admissibility of expert opinion testimony, is reviewed under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard, the majority opinion then fails to apply that standard here. See *542majority op. at ¶ 37. The majority skirts this standard by stating that in exercising its discretion to admit or exclude Dr. Stonefeld's testimony, the circuit court did not give consideration to whether exclusion of the testimony would deprive St. George of his right to present a defense. Id. at ¶ 48. In effect, the majority is asking circuit court judges no longer to base evidentiary decisions on the rules of evidence. Rather, the majority now requires circuit court judges to engage in nothing less than difficult mental gymnastics, in order to issue decisions on the admissibility of evidence. Wisconsin circuit court judges must now not only apply the rules of evidence, but then question whether the court should actually apply the rules of evidence to exclude otherwise inadmissible evidence in light of a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. Here, the majority reasons that the circuit court should have exercised its discretion to admit the so-called expert testimony, rather than exclude it, on the basis that the defendant is denied his constitutional right to present a defense, even though when the rules of evidence were applied, the evidence was deemed to be inadmissible by the circuit court judge. Majority op. at ¶ 73.
¶ 91. The majority's complicated approach is not necessary, however, because a defendant does not have a right, constitutional or otherwise, to present irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible evidence. State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 192, 453 N.W.2d 127 (1990); Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d 332. The rules of evidence are not "arbitrary or disproportionate" where they are applied to exclude irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible evidence. See Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 308-309 (The right to present evidence is subject to the reasonable restrictions of evidentiary rules that serve legitimate interests, including "ensuring that only reliable evidence is *543introduced at trial."); see also United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982) (to establish a Sixth Amendment violation the defendant must prove the testimony would have been relevant, material, and vital to the defense). The majority opinion ignores the reality that St. George was not limited to the testimony of Dr: Stonefeld. St. George could have hired another expert witness, one with sufficient knowledge and experience on the issues relevant in this case.
¶ 92. Based on the circuit court's reasonable decision that Dr. Stonefeld's testimony was not likely to assist the jury, and that he did not have the specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training or education on the relevant topics, I would affirm the court of appeals', decision in full. The defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense, because, as the court of appeals noted, he "do[es] not posses the constitutional right to present any and all evidence in support of a claim." St. George, No. 00-2830-CR, ¶ 35 (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302); see also Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶ 42.1 agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that Dr. Stonefeld's testimony did not meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 907.02. The defendant, therefore, is not deprived of any constitutional right by the circuit court's conclusion that he could not present evidence that does not meet the requirements of the evidence code for admissibility. I would come to the same conclusion as the circuit court and the court of appeals did in this case, therefore, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 93. I am authorized to state that Justice JON E WILCOX joins this dissent.

 I disagree with the majority's characterization of State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, and State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 453 N.W.2d 127 (1990), as "ignoring the usual standard of review that questions of constitutional fact are determined independently by this court." Majority op. at ¶ 16 n.17.