| Court: | WI Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Whitty is convicted of something, but it's not clear what. He claims testimony about his little black-and-white rabbit ruse (used to lure a girl to a basement for molestation) was prejudicial. |
| Posture: | Convicted, then appealed... not totally clear what the deal is here. |
| Issue: | Was the testimony prejudicial? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | A trial court has to consider carefully whether evidence of prior crimes will be prejudicial, but it's not necessarily inadmissible. |
| Reasoning: | Evidence that's inadmissible for one purpose might be OK for another. Also, the evidence doesn't have to be in the form of conviction; just evidence that an incident occurred might tend to substantiate other evidence. As was the case here. |
| Dicta: | Evidence of prior crimes should be used sparingly. |