erroneous exercise of discretion standard in Wisconsin

2025See Plude, 310 Wis. 2d 28, ¶31 . ¶14 Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Brantley’s motion summarily and without a hearing because the evidence he presented in support failed to prove a manifest injustice.

2025See Plude, 310 Wis. 2d 28, ¶31 .

2026We review the trial court’s decision “to admit or exclude evidence under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶28 , 246 Wis. 2d 67 , 629 N.W.2d 698 . 5 No. 2024AP2355-CR ¶14 In this case, the social media posts that Bryant sought to admit amount to a type of other-acts evidence bearing on the character of the victim that is commonly referred to as McMorris evidence.

2026We review the trial court’s decision “to admit or exclude evidence under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶28 , 246 Wis. 2d 67 , 629 N.W.2d 698 . 5 No. 2024AP2355-CR ¶14 In this case, the social media posts that Bryant sought to admit amount to a type of other-acts evidence bearing on the character of the victim that is commonly referred to as McMorris evidence.

2025Id.

2022See id. 8 No. 2020AP1750-CR I.

2024STAT. § 974.07(7)(a)2., it has not settled the question, and it has not overruled State v. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99, ¶16 , 273 Wis. 2d 707 , 681 N.W.2d 316 , which held that the erroneous exercise of discretion standard was appropriate.

2024STAT. § 974.07(7)(a)2., it has not settled the question, and it has not overruled State v. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99, ¶16 , 273 Wis. 2d 707 , 681 N.W.2d 316 , which held that the erroneous exercise of discretion standard was appropriate.

2025Id. 10 No. 2024AP1634 ¶16 This court also reviews a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard, see Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶81 , 235 Wis. 2d 325 , 611 N.W.2d 659 , and will not upset the circuit court’s decision if that decision “has ‘a reasonable basis’ and was made ‘in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record.’” Lievrouw v. Roth, 157 Wis. 2d 332, 348 , 459 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1990) (citations omitted). ¶17 If the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion, appella

2025Id. 10 No. 2024AP1634 ¶16 This court also reviews a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard, see Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶81 , 235 Wis. 2d 325 , 611 N.W.2d 659 , and will not upset the circuit court’s decision if that decision “has ‘a reasonable basis’ and was made ‘in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record.’” Lievrouw v. Roth, 157 Wis. 2d 332, 348 , 459 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1990) (citations omitted). ¶17 If the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion, appella

2025Id. 10 No. 2024AP1634 ¶16 This court also reviews a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard, see Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶81 , 235 Wis. 2d 325 , 611 N.W.2d 659 , and will not upset the circuit court’s decision if that decision “has ‘a reasonable basis’ and was made ‘in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record.’” Lievrouw v. Roth, 157 Wis. 2d 332, 348 , 459 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1990) (citations omitted). ¶17 If the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion, appella

2024He cites Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶81 , 235 Wis. 2d 325 , 611 N.W.2d 659 , and asserts that this court should review the trial court’s admission and reliance on this evidence under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. ¶23 Antonin is mistaken.

2025We afford a sentence “a 3 No. 2023AP2257-CR strong presumption of reasonability because the circuit court is best suited to consider the relevant factors and demeanor of the convicted defendant.” Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶18 (citation omitted). ¶7 “When making a sentencing determination, a court must consider the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, as well as any appropriate mitigating or aggravating factors.” Salas Gayton, 370 Wis. 2d 264, ¶22 .

2016Under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard, "the circuit court's determination will be upheld on appeal if it is a reasonable conclusion, based upon a consideration of the appropriate law and facts of record." Peplinski v. Fobe's Roofing, Inc., 193 Wis. 2d 6, 20 , 531 N.W.2d 597 (1995) (citing Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66 , 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981)). "[A] reviewing court may search the record for reasons to sustain the circuit court's exercise of discretion." State v. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, ¶15 , 310 Wis. 2d 85 , 750 N.W.2d 780 ; see also Peplinski, 193 Wis. 2d at 20 (exercise of

2008Kerans, 167 Wis.2d at 130 , 482 N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted). ¶ 122 In Smith v. Golde the court restated the standard of review: "We review a trial court's decision to enter a default judgment under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard." 224 Wis.2d at 525 , 592 N.W.2d 287 (citation omitted).

2008Kerans, 167 Wis.2d at 130 , 482 N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted). ¶ 122 In Smith v. Golde the court restated the standard of review: "We review a trial court's decision to enter a default judgment under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard." 224 Wis.2d at 525 , 592 N.W.2d 287 (citation omitted).

2019Challenge of the Trial Court's Exercise of Discretion ¶42 Gee next argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in ruling that his 1996 Indiana conviction could be introduced for rebuttal *87 purposes. 2 We review a trial court's admission of other acts evidence under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. *297 Sullivan , 216 Wis. 2d at 780 , 576 N.W.2d 30 .

2019Challenge of the Trial Court's Exercise of Discretion ¶42 Gee next argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in ruling that his 1996 Indiana conviction could be introduced for rebuttal *87 purposes. 2 We review a trial court's admission of other acts evidence under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. *297 Sullivan , 216 Wis. 2d at 780 , 576 N.W.2d 30 .

2004See also Morden v. Cont'l AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶ 81 , 235 Wis. 2d 325 , 611 N.W.2d 659 ; State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 342 , 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983).

2004See also Morden v. Cont'l AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶ 81 , 235 Wis. 2d 325 , 611 N.W.2d 659 ; State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 342 , 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983).

2026See State v. Nieves, 2017 WI 69, ¶16 , 376 Wis. 2d 300 , 897 N.W.2d 363 (“We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” (citation omitted)). ¶12 In reaching an application of the three-part DeSantis test, we recognize that the State argues the threshold matter that Bell forfeited any argument about the trial court’s decision to exclude the photograph by failing to cite the three-part DeSantis test and develop any argument that the photograph met this test.

2026See State v. Nieves, 2017 WI 69, ¶16 , 376 Wis. 2d 300 , 897 N.W.2d 363 (“We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” (citation omitted)). ¶12 In reaching an application of the three-part DeSantis test, we recognize that the State argues the threshold matter that Bell forfeited any argument about the trial court’s decision to exclude the photograph by failing to cite the three-part DeSantis test and develop any argument that the photograph met this test.

2003See Oostburg State Bank v. United Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 130 Wis. 2d 4, 11 , 386 N.W.2d 53 (1986).

2003See Oostburg State Bank v. United Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 130 Wis. 2d 4, 11 , 386 N.W.2d 53 (1986).

2016Id., f 8 (applying erroneous exercise of discretion to circuit court's discretionary decision in regard to contribution during partition action); Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62, ¶ 22 , 355 Wis. 2d 343 , 852 N.W.2d 443 (explaining that review of a circuit court's decision about whether to employ its equitable powers applies the erroneous exercise of discretion standard).

2016Id., f 8 (applying erroneous exercise of discretion to circuit court's discretionary decision in regard to contribution during partition action); Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62, ¶ 22 , 355 Wis. 2d 343 , 852 N.W.2d 443 (explaining that review of a circuit court's decision about whether to employ its equitable powers applies the erroneous exercise of discretion standard).

2023See Koepsell’s, 275 Wis. 2d 397, ¶6 (stating that we review a circuit court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard). ¶21 “To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must present either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact.” Id., ¶44.

2015We review a circuit court's decision on a motion for reconsideration under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. 12 Koepsell's Olde Popcorn Wagons, Inc. v. Koepsell's Festival Popcorn Wagons, Ltd., 2004 WI App 129, ¶ 6 , 275 Wis. 2d 397 , 685 N.W.2d 853 .

2025A party’s failure to comply with a court order is egregious conduct when there is no “‘clear and justifiable excuse[.]’” Industrial Roofing Servs., Inc., v. Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, ¶43 , 299 Wis. 2d 81 , 726 N.W.2d 898 (citation omitted). ¶16 “We examine the circuit court’s decision to grant a default judgment under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Carmain v. Affiliated Cap.

2025A party’s failure to comply with a court order is egregious conduct when there is no “‘clear and justifiable excuse[.]’” Industrial Roofing Servs., Inc., v. Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, ¶43 , 299 Wis. 2d 81 , 726 N.W.2d 898 (citation omitted). ¶16 “We examine the circuit court’s decision to grant a default judgment under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Carmain v. Affiliated Cap.

2018"An erroneous exercise of discretion occurs when a circuit court imposes a sentence 'without the underpinnings of an explained judicial reasoning process.' " Id. (citation omitted). ¶ 15 "Whether to admit proffered expert testimony rests in the circuit court's discretion." State v. LaCount , 2008 WI 59 , ¶ 15, 310 Wis. 2d 85 , 750 N.W.2d 780 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Shomberg , 2006 WI 9 , ¶ 10, 288 Wis. 2d 1 , 709 N.W.2d 370 ). "[O]ur review of a circuit court's use of its discretion is deferential, and we apply the erroneous exercise of discretion standard." *288 L

2018"An erroneous exercise of discretion occurs when a circuit court imposes a sentence 'without the underpinnings of an explained judicial reasoning process.' " Id. (citation omitted). ¶ 15 "Whether to admit proffered expert testimony rests in the circuit court's discretion." State v. LaCount , 2008 WI 59 , ¶ 15, 310 Wis. 2d 85 , 750 N.W.2d 780 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Shomberg , 2006 WI 9 , ¶ 10, 288 Wis. 2d 1 , 709 N.W.2d 370 ). "[O]ur review of a circuit court's use of its discretion is deferential, and we apply the erroneous exercise of discretion standard." *288 L

2025STAT. § 907.02(1) “both independently as a question of law and also under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, ¶88 , 372 Wis. 2d 525 , 888 N.W.2d 816 .

2025STAT. § 907.02(1) “both independently as a question of law and also under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, ¶88 , 372 Wis. 2d 525 , 888 N.W.2d 816 .

2024Id. ¶8 “A circuit court’s discretionary decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a plea before sentencing is subject to review under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Id., ¶30. “[W]e apply a deferential, clearly erroneous standard to the court’s findings of evidentiary or historical fact” including credibility determinations.

2014"A circuit court's discretionary decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a plea before sentencing is subject to review under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard." Jenkins, 303 Wis. 2d 157, ¶30 (citing State v. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d 271, 284 , 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999)).

2019See State v. Walters , 2004 WI 18 , ¶13, 269 Wis. 2d 142 , 675 N.W.2d 778 .

2019See State v. Walters , 2004 WI 18 , ¶13, 269 Wis. 2d 142 , 675 N.W.2d 778 .

2025Weborg v. Jenny, 2012 WI 67, ¶41 , 341 Wis. 2d 668 , 816 N.W.2d 191 .

2025Weborg v. Jenny, 2012 WI 67, ¶41 , 341 Wis. 2d 668 , 816 N.W.2d 191 .

2025“The court erroneously exercises its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or makes a decision not reasonably supported by the facts of record.” State v. Avery, 2013 WI 13, ¶23 , 345 Wis. 2d 407 , 826 N.W.2d 60 . ¶18 The State argues that because Shallcross pleaded guilty (as opposed to entering a no-contest7 or Alford8 plea), he admitted to driving the vehicle that caused the fatal accident, and no case “allows a defendant to unequivocally admit 7 “A criminal defendant, by pleading no contest, declines to exercise his or her right to put the State to their burden of proving him

2025“The court erroneously exercises its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or makes a decision not reasonably supported by the facts of record.” State v. Avery, 2013 WI 13, ¶23 , 345 Wis. 2d 407 , 826 N.W.2d 60 . ¶18 The State argues that because Shallcross pleaded guilty (as opposed to entering a no-contest7 or Alford8 plea), he admitted to driving the vehicle that caused the fatal accident, and no case “allows a defendant to unequivocally admit 7 “A criminal defendant, by pleading no contest, declines to exercise his or her right to put the State to their burden of proving him

2025DISCUSSION ¶6 Ordinarily, we review a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of mandamus “under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74, ¶6 , 311 Wis. 2d 52 , 751 N.W.2d 369 .

2025DISCUSSION ¶6 Ordinarily, we review a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of mandamus “under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74, ¶6 , 311 Wis. 2d 52 , 751 N.W.2d 369 .

2021See State v. Denny, 2017 WI 17, ¶¶74-75 , 373 Wis. 2d 390 , 891 N.W.2d 144 (recognizing the erroneous exercise of discretion standard applied in State v. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99 , 273 Wis. 2d 707 , 681 N.W.2d 316 , yet declining to address the appropriate standard of review).

2021See State v. Denny, 2017 WI 17, ¶¶74-75 , 373 Wis. 2d 390 , 891 N.W.2d 144 (recognizing the erroneous exercise of discretion standard applied in State v. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99 , 273 Wis. 2d 707 , 681 N.W.2d 316 , yet declining to address the appropriate standard of review).