Court Opinion

ID: 9662454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:09:18.089109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:39.608734
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, C. J.
(dissenting). I would reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court on the defendant’s postconviction motion under sec. 974.06, Stats., on the precise question of whether the allegations of the defendant as to the juvenile records of the witnesses against the defendant entitled the defendant to a new trial under the rule of Davis v. Alaska,1 to permit cross-examination as to the bias of these witnesses. The constitutional claim of the defendant here is a matter which we should reach in our discretion since it is not a matter that the defendant can raise as of right here, but the error claimed has such important constitutional ramifications that I think we should decide whether the rule of Davis v. Alaska has application here.2
I think it is crystal clear that Davis v. Alaska does apply if the ruling is retroactive. The Davis Case has been discussed at length in the majority opinion. I disagree with the conclusion that the instant situation is not covered by that case. If a juvenile witness is undergoing a loss of liberty under supervision and there are established juvenile records which quite clearly go to the bias of such a witness, if he can be shown to be biased or prejudiced as against the defendant, then the defendant should be permitted the right to cross-examine that witness.
*508I would hold that Davis v. Alaska is clearly retroactive and thus it would apply to the instant case although the trial was held before Davis was decided in 1974. The rules of retroactivity were thoroughly set forth in the United States Supreme Court case of Linkletter v. Walker.3 The rules with respect to retroactivity were stated by this court in Allison v. State4 as follows:
“. . . The court must consider (1) the purpose of the rule, (2) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old rule, and (3) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standard.”
It is clear that the purpose of the Davis rule is to permit a defendant the right to engage in cross-examination of the state’s complaining witnesses in order to expose possible biases or motives for testifying falsely. This strikes at the very heart of the fact-finding process and the rule should be given retroactive effect.5
I would therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any of the witnesses were, in April, 1972, on a form of “liberty under supervision.” The fact that a witness had a juvenile record would not be sufficient.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Day joins in this dissent.

 (1974), 415 U. S. 308, 94 Sup. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347.

 Peterson v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370, 195 N. W. 2d 837; State v. Morales (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 650, 187 N. W. 2d 841.

 (1965), 381 U. S. 618, 85 Sup. Ct. 1731, 14 L. Ed. 2d 601.

 (1974), 62 Wis. 2d 14, 27, 214 N. W. 2d 437.

 Cf. Johnson v. New Jersey (1966), 384 U. S. 719, 727, 728, 86 Sup. Ct. 1772, 16 L. Ed. 2d 882.