Cluster 2219208

We refer to the “greater latitude rule” throughout the remainder of this opinion. 5 No. 2019AP306-CR the defendant is on trial, see Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶26, 83-88 .4 In circumstances where the rule applies, “circuit courts should admit evidence of other acts with greater latitude under the Sullivan analysis to facilitate its use for a permissible purpose.” See Dorsey, 379 Wis. 2d 386 , ¶33. ¶10 In this case, the circuit court preliminarily concluded that it was required to…

State v. Hunt, 666 N.W.2d 771, 782 (Wis. 2003); State v. Sullivan, 576 N.W.2d 30, 36 (Wis. 1998).

Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 52 (citations omitted). ¶ 71. " 'Motive' is defined as the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action." Blinka, supra, § 404.07, at 202; State v. Balistreri, 106 Wis. 2d 741, 756 , 317 N.W.2d 493 (1982) ("Motive explains the reasons for a person's actions.").

See United States v. Julian, 427 F.3d 471, 487 (7th Cir.2005); State v. Hunt, 263 Wis.2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771, 793-94 (2003).

See United States v. Julian, 427 F.3d 471, 487 (7th Cir.2005); State v. Hunt, 263 Wis.2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771, 793-94 (2003).

Evidence in the record should demonstrate "that discretion was in fact exercised and the basis of that exercise of discretion should be set forth." Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 42 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Evidence in the record should demonstrate "that discretion was in fact exercised and the basis of that exercise of discretion should be set forth." Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶42 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶34 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 .

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶53 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 .

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶52 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 . 11

See John Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶34 .

See Seigel, 163 Wis. 2d at 889 (citing Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66 , 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981)). ¶72 In fact, "[r]egardless of the extent of the . . . [circuit] court's reasoning, [a reviewing court] will uphold a discretionary decision if there are facts in the record which would support the trial court's decision had it fully exercised its discretion." Hurley, 361 Wis. 2d 529, ¶29 (quoting Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶52 ) (third modification in the original).

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶34 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 . 14 No. 2021AP1800-CR these alleged acts would not satisfy the Sullivan analysis on its own, except to argue that chasing Collette with his penis out of his pajama pants may have simply been the result of “loose fitting pants” while “it is much more likely that when an adult male touches a child over her vagina that he is not doing so out of carelessness but for a far more sinister reason.” However, Collett…

See Plude, 310 Wis. 2d 28, ¶31 . ¶17 Furthermore, although we “generally look for reasons to sustain the trial court’s discretionary decisions,” see State v. Lock, 2012 WI App 99, ¶43 , 344 Wis. 2d 166 , 823 N.W.2d 378 , “there should be evidence in the record that discretion was in fact exercised and the basis of that exercise of discretion should be set forth” in order for a discretionary decision to be upheld, see State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶42 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2…

See Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶53 . 12 No. 2019AP1742-CR ¶39 As detailed above, the court appropriately gave limiting instructions during S.W.’s and M.H.’s testimony.

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶34 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 ; Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 780-81 . ¶25 The parties agree that the proper analysis related to the admissibility of the other-acts evidence is under Sullivan.

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶¶4, 34 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 . ¶12 Below, Stevlic largely hung his hat on the third prong of the analysis, arguing that if the jury believed the Illinois evidence based solely on N.S.’s word, it would unfairly prejudice him in regard to the charged crimes.

See Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶53 ; Payano, 320 Wis. 2d 348, ¶68 .

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶59 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 (stating that one basis for other-acts evidence was to show victim’s state of mind); State v. C.V.C., 153 Wis. 2d 145 , 162, 450 N.W.2d 463 (Ct. App. 1989) (same); see also Payano, 320 Wis. 2d 348, ¶¶63-64 . ¶47 K.M. knew that Johnson had previously found child pornography on his computer years earlier; therefore, when he saw Johnson on his computer that morning K.M. knew what Johnson was looking for.

See State v. Marinez, 2011 WI 12, ¶27 , 331 Wis. 2d 568 , 797 N.W.2d 399 ("We have previously recognized that context, . . . and providing a more complete background are permissible purposes under Wis. Stat. § 904.04 (2)(a).") (citing Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶58 ).

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶53 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 . ¶11 Applying the first two prongs of the Sullivan test, we agree with the State that the circuit court reasonably concluded that the evidence of Greenwald’s theft of personal property from R.S.’s farm was offered to prove, and relevant to, Greenwald’s intent and identity for purposes of the forgery, uttering a forgery, and identity theft charges.

Therefore, "we must ensure that the circuit court's determination was made upon the facts of record and in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law." Schwarz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, ¶ 32 (citing Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d at 289 ); see State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶ 52 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 (citing State v. Shillcutt, 116 Wis. 2d 227, 238 , 341 N.W.2d 716 (Ct. App. 1983) (noting that appellate courts "will uphold a discretionary decision if there are facts in the record w…

See Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 57 .

See id., 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 59 (concluding that one basis on which the other acts evidence was properly admitted was to show the victims' states of mind); State v. C.V.C., 153 Wis. 2d 145 , 162, 450 N.W.2d 463 (Ct. App. 1989) (concluding that the admission of evidence of the defendant's previous threatening acts to show the victim's state of mind was proper). ¶ 36.

See Hunt , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , ¶ 73.

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶60 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 , and State v. Plymesser, 172 Wis. 2d 583, 593-95 , 493 N.W.2d 367 (1992).

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶¶ 34, 42, 52 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 .

See State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶ 4 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.d 771.

See also State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶60 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 (“There is no doubt that sexual assault, involving either sexual contact or sexual intercourse, requires an intentional or volitional act by the perpetrator.”).

See Randall, 235 Wis. 2d 1, ¶7 ; see also State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶4 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 (providing that we are required to independently review the record “if the circuit court fails to provide a detailed Sullivan analysis”).

See, e.g., State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81 , ¶45 n.14, 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 ; Conrad v. Conrad, 92 Wis. 2d 407, 415 , 284 N.W.2d 674 (1979).

See, e.g., Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶ 58-59 .