Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 751 — SUPREME COURT
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 751.06 (2026)

Discretionary reversal

✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
751.06751.06 Discretionary reversal. In an appeal in the supreme court, if it appears from the record that the real controversy has not been fully tried, or that it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried, the court may reverse the judgment or order appealed from, regardless of whether the proper motion or objection appears in the record, and may direct the entry of the proper judgment or remit the case to the trial court for the entry of the proper judgment or for a new trial, and direct the making of such amendments in the pleadings and the adoption of such procedure in that court, not inconsistent with statutes or rules, as are necessary to accomplish the ends of justice.
751.06 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 187 s. 76; Stats. 1977 s. 751.06.
751.06 AnnotationThe court may reverse in the interest of justice even though proper motions or objections were not made. A judgment was reversed because the defendant’s counsel persisted in asking questions that amounted to testimony on his part and because in arguing to the jury he commented on facts that he had observed. Lorenz v. Wolff, 45 Wis. 2d 407, 173 N.W.2d 129 (1970).
751.06 AnnotationA general judgment creditor, having failed to timely appeal from a foreclosure judgment, was not entitled under this section to remand for a factual determination of a real, although perhaps untried, issue affecting the homestead exemption. Anchor Savings & Loan Association v. Week, 62 Wis. 2d 169, 213 N.W.2d 737 (1974).
751.06 AnnotationA new trial was necessary because of the prosecution’s failure to make full and fair pretrial disclosure to the defendant of exculpatory evidence. State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis. 2d 730, 216 N.W.2d 8 (1974).
751.06 AnnotationRequirements for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are discussed. State v. Boyce, 75 Wis. 2d 452, 249 N.W.2d 758 (1977).
751.06 AnnotationWhen a verdict form did not contain a special fact question regarding a major issue of the case, the real issues had not been tried. Schulz v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 81 Wis. 2d 638, 260 N.W.2d 783 (1978).
751.06 AnnotationAlthough failure to object at a conference under s. 805.13 to a substantive defect in the verdict constituted waiver, the failure to object did not preclude the court’s consideration of the defect under s. 751.06. Clark v. Leisure Vehicles, Inc., 96 Wis. 2d 607, 292 N.W.2d 630 (1980). See also Air Wisconsin, Inc. v. North Central Airlines, Inc., 98 Wis. 2d 301, 296 N.W.2d 749 (1980).
Down
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
 View toggle
 Go to top of document
Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Search in this agency
 Search in this chapter group
 Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Cross references for section
 Acts affecting this section
 References to this
 1970 Statutes Annotations
 Appellate Court Citations
 Administrative Code Index
Reference lines
 Clear highlighting
751.06 AnnotationWhen the credibility of a witness was a critical issue, exclusion under s. 906.08 (1) of the evidence offered was grounds for discretionary reversal. State v. Cuyler, 110 Wis. 2d 133, 327 N.W.2d 662 (1983).
751.06 AnnotationUnder the second prong of the discretionary-reversal statute, the “miscarriage of justice” prong, a court would have to conclude that there would be a substantial probability that a different result would be likely on retrial in order to grant a discretionary reversal. State v. Schumacher, 144 Wis. 2d 388, 424 N.W.2d 672 (1988).
751.06 AnnotationA new trial may be ordered in either of two ways: 1) whenever the real controversy has not been fully tried; or 2) whenever it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried. Separate criteria exists for determining each of these two distinct situations. Situations in which the controversy may not have been fully tried have arisen in two factually distinct ways: 1) when the jury was erroneously not given the opportunity to hear important testimony that bore on an important issue of the case; and 2) when the jury had before it evidence not properly admitted which so clouded a crucial issue that it may be fairly said that the real controversy was not fully tried. State v. Hicks, 202 Wis. 2d 150, 549 N.W.2d 435 (1996), 94-2256.
751.06 AnnotationState v. Wyss: A new appellate standard for granting new trials in the interest of justice. 1987 WLR 171.
751.06 AnnotationA Fearless Search for the Truth No Longer: State v. Henley and Its Destructive Impact on New Trials in the Interest of Justice. Mark. 2012 WLR 1367.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 129 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2019 WI 59, 928 N.W.2d 564.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2019 WI 59, 928 N.W.2d 564. · cites it 51× “Lastly, Trammell alternatively claims that discretionary reversal is warranted under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 . ¶2 We conclude that Trammell waived his right to object to the use of Wis JI—Criminal 140 by failing to object to its use at the jury instruction and verdict conference,…”
Braylon Seifert v. Kay M. Balink, 2017 WI 2, 888 N.W.2d 816. · cites it 26× “Should this court grant a new trial in the interests of justice pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 751.06 ? ¶14 The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, concluding that a new trial was not warranted.”
Vill. of Trempealeau v. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, 681 N.W.2d 190. · cites it 20× “In addition, Wis. Stat. §§ 751.06 and 752.35 may allow discretionary appellate review of waived issues in extraordinary circumstances, and Wis.”
State v. Avery, 2013 WI 13, 826 N.W.2d 60. · cites it 22× “" Wis. Stat. § 751.06 . Cases where the real controversy has not been fully tried have generally been limited to two situations: (1) when the jury was erroneously denied the opportunity to hear important evidence bearing on an important issue in the case or (2) when the jury had…”
Winnebago Cnty. v. J.M. (In Re Mental Commitment of J.M.), 2018 WI 37, 911 N.W.2d 41. · cites it 30× “has not established that he is entitled to a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 on the ground that his wearing of prison garb during the trial so distracted the jury "that the real controversy [was] not [] fully tried," and justice was miscarried.”
Vollmer v. Luety, 456 N.W.2d 797 (Wis. 1990). · cites it 17× “Sec. 751.06, Stats. (discretionary reversal power of supreme court), and 752.”
State v. Corey R. Kucharski, 2015 WI 64, 866 N.W.2d 697. · cites it 21× “awb ¶54 The statute has subsequently gone through slight revisions and has been renumbered as Wis. Stat. § 751.06 . The substance, however, is substantially the same: In an appeal in the supreme court, if it appears from the record that the real controversy has not been fully…”
State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, 734 N.W.2d 115. · cites it 11× “Mayo further asserts that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 (2005-06). Mayo argues that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's comments in her opening statement, and in her closing and rebuttal arguments,…”
State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58, 832 N.W.2d 560. · cites it 15× “2011AP1044-CR & 2011AP1105-CR III ¶87 The parents assert that their convictions should be reversed and new trials should be ordered in the interest of justice under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 . They maintain that the real controversy was not fully tried because of erroneous jury…”
State v. Bannister, 2007 WI 86, 734 N.W.2d 892. · cites it 22× “Second, should the court grant Bannister a new trial in the interest of justice pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 751.06 ? [2] We hold that the real controversy in this case was tried and do not grant Bannister a new trial.”
State v. Romero, 432 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 1988). · cites it 22× “other incidents of sexual assault? Second, was it plain error for the circuit court to admit testimony by the police officer and a social worker that the complainant was truthful in her accusations? Although the parties have requested that we address these issues under the plain…”
State v. Hicks, 549 N.W.2d 435 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 16× “See Wis. Stat. § 751.06 . [1] Our examination of *153 the record leads us to conclude that the real controversy was not fully tried inasmuch as: (1) the DNA evidence excluding Hicks as the donor of one of the hair specimens was relevant to the critical issue of identification;…”
Show all 129 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.