Court Opinion

ID: 9688780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:04:56.467121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.244893
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting). For the reasons stated in the dissent filed in State v. Friedrich, 135 Wis. 2d 1, 398 N.W.2d 763 (1987), I dissent. This case presents even more egregious error than that found in Friedrich. In Friedrich, the defendant was charged with having sexual contact with his fourteen year old niece. The majority of this court held that it was proper to admit evidence of uncharged, unsubstantiated allegations of two prior assaults by the defendant against ten and thirteen year old females that purportedly occurred five and seven years prior to the defendant's trial. The majority concluded that the prior unsubstantiated allegation evidence was admissible to show a "common scheme or plan" of the defendant. In this case, the time gap and the dissimilarity between the act charged and the prior acts is even greater than in Friedrich. In *599this case, the defendant was charged with sexual assault for fondling the breasts and vaginal area of a thirteen year old female. The prior assault which was admitted into evidence was for an incident that occurred thirteen years previously involving oral contact with the vaginal area of a seven year old female. Characterizing these two incidents as being part of a common scheme or plan twists those words beyond recognition. As stated in the defendant's brief:
This court has opened the doors to the introduction of prior crimes evidence so wide that virtually nothing is or can be excluded, thereby substantially increasing the risk of convicting the innocent.
I agree. Accordingly, I dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice NATHAN S. Heffernan and Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson join in this dissent.