Court Opinion

ID: 9738208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:45:05.232747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.430310
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 44. {concurring). I join the majority opinion. I write separately to explain what the second issue is in the present case.
*379¶ 45. The second issue is described by the majority opinion in ¶ 2 as "what form the evidence may take at trial." The parties frame this issue as follows: Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in concluding that the purported false prior accusation could be proven at Ringer's trial by extrinsic evidence?
¶ 46. The circuit court held that extrinsic evidence could be introduced. The State argued in the court of appeals and here that extrinsic evidence is barred by State v. Rognrud, 156 Wis. 2d 783, 457 N.W.2d 573 (Ct. App. 1990). The court of appeals concluded that the State had waived the issue of the use of extrinsic evidence to prove prior false accusations by failing to address the merits of the issue at the circuit court.
¶ 47. Neither the majority opinion nor I address this issue.