Court Opinion

ID: 9695726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:28:14.728601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:42.560729
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
(concurring).
I-H
I agree that this case must be returned to the trial court for resentencing because Skaff was not permitted to read his presentence report. As the majority notes, the legislature could not have intended to deny defendants who are represented by counsel access to their presentence reports while granting free access to those defendants who do not have lawyers. Majority opinion at *6157. Since we have determined that the statute grants Skaff personal access to his presentence report, we need not — and should not — reach his constitutional arguments. See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 533, 370 N.W.2d 222, 227 (1985).
HH HH
I also agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury. The instruction given by the trial court adequately provided the legal basis for Skaff s theory of defense. That is all that is required. See State v. Pruitt, 95 Wis. 2d 69, 81, 289 N.W.2d 343, 348 (Ct. App. 1980).