| Court: | WI Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Child testifies about abuse, but recants. |
| Posture: | Guilty at trial, post-conviction motion set denied. Affirmed at appeal. |
| Issue: | Should the evidence excluded under the rape-shield law have been allowed? Also should the doctor's testimony have been allowed? Were these exclusions unconstitutional? |
| Holding: | Rape-shield stuff was properly excluded, doctor stuff was not. Reversed and remanded for new trial. |
| Rule: | Complex discussions of rules of evidence |
| Reasoning: | On the rape shield stuff, the evidence that was proffered was actually pretty banal, and doesn't overcome the interest of protecting the witness. For the doctor stuff, though, it was a big deal, especially since the state's experts went unchallenged. |
| Dicta: | |