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: |
|