latitude rule in Wisconsin

2026The greater latitude rule applies to each part of the Sullivan test, and “[t]he effect of the rule is to permit the more liberal admission of other crimes evidence in sex crime cases in which the victim is a child.” Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537, ¶¶51-52 . ¶24 We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude other-acts evidence for an erroneous exercise of discretion.

2025See Hurley, 361 Wis. 2d 529, ¶89 . ¶21 Second, one of the reasons for the greater latitude rule “is the need to corroborate the victim’s testimony against credibility challenges.” State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶40 , 236 Wis. 2d 537 , 613 N.W.2d 606 . “[C]redibility is particularly probative in cases that come down to he-said-she-said.” Dorsey, 379 Wis. 2d 386 , ¶50. ¶22 Third, the trial court gave cautionary instructions, telling the jury: [E]vidence has been presented that the defendant had prior sexual assault convictions.

2025See State v. Marinez, 2011 WI 12, ¶20 , 331 Wis. 2d 568 , 797 N.W.2d 399 (“Because this is a child sexual assault case with a young victim, the greater latitude rule ‘permit[s] a more liberal admission of other crimes evidence.’” (alteration in original; citation omitted)).

2025See State v. Marinez, 2011 WI 12, ¶20 , 331 Wis. 2d 568 , 797 N.W.2d 399 (“Because this is a child sexual assault case with a young victim, the greater latitude rule ‘permit[s] a more liberal admission of other crimes evidence.’” (alteration in original; citation omitted)).

2025See Hurley, 361 Wis. 2d 529, ¶89 . ¶21 Second, one of the reasons for the greater latitude rule “is the need to corroborate the victim’s testimony against credibility challenges.” State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶40 , 236 Wis. 2d 537 , 613 N.W.2d 606 . “[C]redibility is particularly probative in cases that come down to he-said-she-said.” Dorsey, 379 Wis. 2d 386 , ¶50. ¶22 Third, the trial court gave cautionary instructions, telling the jury: [E]vidence has been presented that the defendant had prior sexual assault convictions.

2024See Hurley, 361 Wis. 2d 529, ¶89 (“Limiting instructions substantially mitigate any unfair prejudicial effect.”); WIS JI—CRIMINAL 276 (2016). ¶49 Finally, we address the greater latitude rule in the context of the prior-conviction statute.

2026See Gutierrez, 391 Wis. 2d 799, ¶36 (citing State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶91 , 255 Wis. 2d 390 , 648 N.W.2d 447 , for the proposition “that even ‘graphic, disturbing, and extremely prejudicial’ testimony detailing a similar other act of child sexual assault is admissible under the greater latitude rule”). ¶43 In summary, the circuit court applied the correct legal standard, considered the relevant facts, and reasonably concluded that the Ashland County other-acts evidence was admissible.

2026See Gutierrez, 391 Wis. 2d 799, ¶36 (citing State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶91 , 255 Wis. 2d 390 , 648 N.W.2d 447 , for the proposition “that even ‘graphic, disturbing, and extremely prejudicial’ testimony detailing a similar other act of child sexual assault is admissible under the greater latitude rule”). ¶43 In summary, the circuit court applied the correct legal standard, considered the relevant facts, and reasonably concluded that the Ashland County other-acts evidence was admissible.

2025The State argues No. 2023AP1865-CR that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by excluding portions of the State’s proposed other-acts evidence because the court improperly applied the standard established in State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 , 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998), particularly in light of the greater latitude rule in WIS.

2025STAT. § 904.03.6 Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 771-73 . 6 The circuit court did not apply the greater latitude rule to its analysis because it questioned whether that rule would apply to the facts of this case.

2024Protasiewicz recused herself from consideration of the appeal. 7 No. 2021AP1399-CR proponent of the other acts evidence need only “identif[y] one acceptable purpose for admission of the evidence.” State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86, ¶63 , 320 Wis. 2d 348 , 768 N.W.2d 832 (footnote omitted). ¶16 Additionally, the greater latitude rule, as codified and expanded by the legislature in 2014, provides that [i]n a criminal proceeding … alleging the commission of a serious sex offense, as defined in [WIS.

2024Protasiewicz recused herself from consideration of the appeal. 7 No. 2021AP1399-CR proponent of the other acts evidence need only “identif[y] one acceptable purpose for admission of the evidence.” State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86, ¶63 , 320 Wis. 2d 348 , 768 N.W.2d 832 (footnote omitted). ¶16 Additionally, the greater latitude rule, as codified and expanded by the legislature in 2014, provides that [i]n a criminal proceeding … alleging the commission of a serious sex offense, as defined in [WIS.

2022Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 772-73 . ¶15 Further, “[i]n a sex crime case, the admissibility of other acts evidence must be viewed in light of the greater latitude rule.” State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶23 , 236 Wis. 2d 686 , 613 N.W.2d 629 ; see also WIS.

2022Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 772-73 . ¶15 Further, “[i]n a sex crime case, the admissibility of other acts evidence must be viewed in light of the greater latitude rule.” State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶23 , 236 Wis. 2d 686 , 613 N.W.2d 629 ; see also WIS.

2022In its oral ruling on this issue, the court said that, although the line between character and other acts evidence can be difficult to determine, the evidence about Stroik’s “sex drive” could be considered other acts evidence and was admissible under the greater latitude rule because it was relevant and probative of intent. 23 As the Wisconsin treatise on evidence explains, “[i]t is one thing to be solicitous toward the use of such proof [of other acts evidence for permissible purposes]; it is quite another to turn a blind eye toward its misuse as bad character/propensity evidence.” 7 BLINKA,

2018"Evidence relevant to motive is therefore admissible, whether or not defendant disputes motive." Id. ¶49 Whether other-acts evidence has probative value asks whether the other acts are similar, that is, whether they are 27 Dorsey argues that his cause is distinguishable from the considerable precedent applying the greater latitude rule and holding that motive is relevant to establish purpose because that precedent exclusively evaluates the relevance of motive in the context of sexual abuse crimes, where the purpose of "sexual gratification" is an element of the crime.

2020See Proper v. State, 85 Wis. 615, 630 , 55 N.W. 1035 (1893) (“A greater latitude of proof as to other like occurrences is allowed in cases of sexual crimes.”). 7 The circuit court cited State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 59 , 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999) (citation omitted), which explained that “[i]t is not necessary that prior-crime evidence be in the form of a conviction; evidence of the incident, crime or occurrence is sufficient” and, accordingly, “other acts evidence may consist of uncharged offenses.” 10 No. 2019AP1780-CR “when it dealt with two people under the age of 18 and whether you then, in f

2020See Proper v. State, 85 Wis. 615, 630 , 55 N.W. 1035 (1893) (“A greater latitude of proof as to other like occurrences is allowed in cases of sexual crimes.”). 7 The circuit court cited State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 59 , 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999) (citation omitted), which explained that “[i]t is not necessary that prior-crime evidence be in the form of a conviction; evidence of the incident, crime or occurrence is sufficient” and, accordingly, “other acts evidence may consist of uncharged offenses.” 10 No. 2019AP1780-CR “when it dealt with two people under the age of 18 and whether you then, in f

2020See Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 772-73 . ¶9 Additionally, when the defendant is on trial for a sexual offense, “ʻWisconsin courts permit a more liberal admission of other [acts] evidence....’ Accordingly, in a sex crime case, the admissibility of other acts evidence must be viewed in light of the greater latitude test.” State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶86 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 (citation omitted).

2020See Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 772-73 . ¶9 Additionally, when the defendant is on trial for a sexual offense, “ʻWisconsin courts permit a more liberal admission of other [acts] evidence....’ Accordingly, in a sex crime case, the admissibility of other acts evidence must be viewed in light of the greater latitude test.” State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶86 , 263 Wis. 2d 1 , 666 N.W.2d 771 (citation omitted).

2023Gee, 388 Wis. 2d 68, ¶27 . ¶18 The second component of the greater latitude rule, WIS.

2023See Gee, 388 Wis. 2d 68 , ¶43 & n.3. ¶19 Olds suggests there was a meritorious objection to the admission of the other-acts evidence because the State improperly suggested that the evidence was automatically admissible under the greater latitude rule.4 Even if there was a basis for such an objection in response to the State’s argument, 5 the circuit court’s analysis did not apply any sort of automatic admissibility criteria.

2026See Gutierrez, 391 Wis. 2d 799, ¶36 (citing State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶91 , 255 Wis. 2d 390 , 648 N.W.2d 447 , for the proposition “that even ‘graphic, disturbing, and extremely prejudicial’ testimony detailing a similar other act of child sexual assault is admissible under the greater latitude rule”). ¶43 In summary, the circuit court applied the correct legal standard, considered the relevant facts, and reasonably concluded that the Ashland County other-acts evidence was admissible.

2025“The greater latitude rule liberalizes each of Sullivan’s three prongs in favor of admitting similar acts of child sexual assault.” State v. Gutierrez, 2020 WI 52, ¶29 , 391 Wis. 2d 799 , 943 N.W.2d 870 .

2003In light of such difficulty, we held that the greater latitude rule "support[s] the more liberal standard of admissibility in child sexual assault cases." Id. (citing State v. Friedrich, 135 Wis. 2d at 30 -33 and n.17.

2003In light of such difficulty, we held that the greater latitude rule "support[s] the more liberal standard of admissibility in child sexual assault cases." Id. (citing State v. Friedrich, 135 Wis. 2d at 30 -33 and n.17.

2018Thus, the term "greater latitude" is a term of art in the context of other-acts evidence and its application is well-established in the common law. 23 No. 2015AP648-CR ¶33 The greater latitude rule has been described as operating to "facilitate[] the admissibility of the other acts evidence under the exceptions set forth in [Wis. Stat.] § 904.04(2)[(a)]." State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶23 , 236 Wis. 2d 686 , 613 N.W.2d 629 (citing Hendrickson v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 275, 279 , 212 N.W.2d 481 (1973)).

2018Thus, the term "greater latitude" is a term of art in the context of other-acts evidence and its application is well-established in the common law. 23 No. 2015AP648-CR ¶33 The greater latitude rule has been described as operating to "facilitate[] the admissibility of the other acts evidence under the exceptions set forth in [Wis. Stat.] § 904.04(2)[(a)]." State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, ¶23 , 236 Wis. 2d 686 , 613 N.W.2d 629 (citing Hendrickson v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 275, 279 , 212 N.W.2d 481 (1973)).

2000The probative value of evidence must not be outweighed by unfair prejudice, which is the "potential harm of a jury reaching the conclusion that because the defendant committed a bad act in the past, the defen dant necessarily committed the current crime." Mink, 146 Wis. 2d at 17 (citing Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d at 261-62 ). ¶ 36.

2000Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d at 257 .

2023“The measure of probative value in assessing relevance is the similarity between the charged offense and the other act,” State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 58 , 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999), which “depends partially upon its nearness in time, place, and circumstance to the alleged crime or element sought to be proved,” Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537, ¶75 (citation omitted). ¶61 We agree with the State that when taking into account the greater latitude rule, the circuit court’s determination that Ava’s and Sally’s allegations were sufficiently similar was reasonable.

2023“The measure of probative value in assessing relevance is the similarity between the charged offense and the other act,” State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 58 , 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999), which “depends partially upon its nearness in time, place, and circumstance to the alleged crime or element sought to be proved,” Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537, ¶75 (citation omitted). ¶61 We agree with the State that when taking into account the greater latitude rule, the circuit court’s determination that Ava’s and Sally’s allegations were sufficiently similar was reasonable.

2024As the 14 No. 2021AP1399-CR Dorsey court indicated, the greater latitude rule exists in substantial part because of “the difficult proof issues in [he-said-she-said] kinds of cases.” See id.8 ¶31 As to the relevance of the other acts evidence to another of the State’s permissible purposes—modus operandi, or method of operation—we previously agreed with an Iowa Supreme Court decision in which that court “explained … that evidence of modus operandi may be introduced to rebut a defendant’s claim of consent by showing that he ‘has had a nonconsenting encounter with another person in this strikingl

2024As the 14 No. 2021AP1399-CR Dorsey court indicated, the greater latitude rule exists in substantial part because of “the difficult proof issues in [he-said-she-said] kinds of cases.” See id.8 ¶31 As to the relevance of the other acts evidence to another of the State’s permissible purposes—modus operandi, or method of operation—we previously agreed with an Iowa Supreme Court decision in which that court “explained … that evidence of modus operandi may be introduced to rebut a defendant’s claim of consent by showing that he ‘has had a nonconsenting encounter with another person in this strikingl

2023Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 9 No. 2021AP1909-CR failed to establish prejudice arising from his trial attorney’s failure to present greater argument supporting his general objection to the admissibility of the Amy and Eva incidents. ¶22 At the postconviction hearing, Olds’s counsel focused on the admissibility of the evidence of the babysitter incident, acknowledging that “the babysitter claim is I think a stronger claim.” Given our foregoing determination regarding evidence of the Amy and Eva incidents, however, we easily conclude that no prejudice arose from the admiss

2023See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300 , 277 N.W. 663 (1938) (stating that if a decision on one point disposes of the appeal, then this court need not decide the other issues raised).

2023See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300 , 277 N.W. 663 (1938) (stating that if a decision on one point disposes of the appeal, then this court need not decide the other issues raised).

2021Banks v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 145, 153 , 186 N.W.2d 250 (1971); see also Ruiz v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 230, 234 , 249 N.W.2d 277 (1977) (“The jury, as the judge of credibility, had the right to believe the testimony of Garcia and to disbelieve the unanimous testimony of witnesses to the contrary.”). ¶51 Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the greater latitude rule applies to the Sullivan analysis.

2021Banks v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 145, 153 , 186 N.W.2d 250 (1971); see also Ruiz v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 230, 234 , 249 N.W.2d 277 (1977) (“The jury, as the judge of credibility, had the right to believe the testimony of Garcia and to disbelieve the unanimous testimony of witnesses to the contrary.”). ¶51 Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the greater latitude rule applies to the Sullivan analysis.