Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (2026)
Rulings on evidence
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
901.03(1)(1) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected; and
901.03(1)(a)(a) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
901.03(1)(b)(b) Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
901.03(2)(2) Record of offer and ruling. The judge may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. The judge may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.
901.03(3)(3) Hearing of jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury.
901.03(4)(4) Plain error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.
901.03 AnnotationAn offer of proof must be made as a necessary condition precedent to the review of any alleged error in the exclusion of evidence. Without an offer there is no way to determine whether the exclusion was prejudicial. State v. Moffett, 46 Wis. 2d 164, 174 N.W.2d 263.
901.03 AnnotationIn order for an error to be “plain error” it must be so fundamental that a new trial must be granted so as not to deny a basic constitutional right. State v. Vinson, 183 Wis. 2d 297, 515 N.W.2d 314 (Ct. App. 1994).
901.03 AnnotationNot all constitutional errors are plain errors. Some may be harmless errors. The state has the burden of showing that an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. King, 205 Wis. 2d 81, 555 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3442.
901.03 AnnotationWhen a defendant alleges that a prosecutor’s statements constituted plain error, the test is whether, in the context of the entire record of the trial, the statements so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. State v. Cameron, 2016 WI App 54, 370 Wis. 2d 661, 885 N.W.2d 611, 15-1088.
901.03 AnnotationUnder sub. (1), an erroneous evidentiary ruling is reversible only if a substantial right of a party is affected. That means that an error is harmless if the party benefitted by the error shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, 383 Wis. 2d 100, 913 N.W.2d 894, 14-2187.
901.03 AnnotationThe court uses several non-exclusive factors to aid the court’s application of the harmless error rule in the evidentiary context: 1) the frequency of the error; 2) the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence to the prosecution’s or defense’s case; 3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously included or excluded evidence; 4) whether erroneously excluded evidence merely duplicates untainted evidence; 5) the nature of the defense; 6) the nature of the state’s case; and 7) the overall strength of the state’s case. State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, 383 Wis. 2d 100, 913 N.W.2d 894, 14-2187.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 192
cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Meeks, 2003 WI 104 (Wis. 2003).
State v. Meeks, 2003 WI 104 (Wis. 2003). “" Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (1)(a). Here, Meeks' attorney objected only to the relevance of Scholle's testimony.”
State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60 (Wis. 2008). “See Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (4). I agree with the majority opinion's holding that the unobjected-to errors in the present case constitute plain error.”
State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 2014 WI 4 (Wis. 2014). “We first discuss whether Jackson laid a proper foundation for the reputation evidence.”
Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113 (Wis. 2001). “Two statutes govern this situation, Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (Rulings on evidence) and Wis.”
State v. Angel Mercado, 2021 WI 2 (Wis. 2021). “We conclude that, under Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (1), Mercado forfeited several of his objections by either not raising them during his trial or raising an issue on appeal.”
State v. Agnello, 593 N.W.2d 427 (Wis. 1999). “Consequently, I conclude that the objection lacked the specificity required by Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (1). ¶ 51. Similarly, I conclude that Agnello's objection was untimely.”
State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78 (Wis. 2007). “The majority opinion and the State conclude that the errors and improper conduct were not sufficient to warrant a new trial under any of the three doctrines that protect a fair trial against trial errors: plain error ( Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (4)), interest of justice ( Wis.”
Virgil v. State, 267 N.W.2d 852 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 901.03, Stats., contains the provisions of the Rules of Evidence relating to objections and the review of errors made in the admission or exclusion of evidence.”
State v. Romero, 432 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 1988). “NOTES [1] Section 901.03, Stats., provides in pertinent part: "(1) Effect of Erroneous Ruling.”
State v. Friedrich, 398 N.W.2d 763 (Wis. 1987). “" [6] Section 901.03, Stats., provides: "901.03 Rulings on Evidence.”
State v. Dodson, 580 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. 1998). “[7] Although the form of *74 the offer of proof is at the circuit court's discretion, this court has specifically urged judges to use the question and answer form whenever practicable.”
State v. Kyle Lee Monahan, 913 N.W.2d 894 (Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (1). We construe this to mean that an error is harmless if the party benefitted by the error shows "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1) — 47 cases
Virgil v. State, 267 N.W.2d 852 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 901.03, Stats., contains the provisions of the Rules of Evidence relating to objections and the review of errors made in the admission or exclusion of evidence.”
State v. Agnello, 593 N.W.2d 427 (Wis. 1999). “Consequently, I conclude that the objection lacked the specificity required by Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (1). ¶ 51. Similarly, I conclude that Agnello's objection was untimely.”
Est. of Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2006 WI App 248 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
Sumnicht v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 360 N.W.2d 2 (Wis. 1984).
State v. Angel Mercado, 2021 WI 2 (Wis. 2021). “We conclude that, under Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (1), Mercado forfeited several of his objections by either not raising them during his trial or raising an issue on appeal.”
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1)(a) — 21 cases
State v. Romero, 432 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 1988). “NOTES [1] Section 901.03, Stats., provides in pertinent part: "(1) Effect of Erroneous Ruling.”
State v. Wolff, 491 N.W.2d 498 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Damon, 409 N.W.2d 444 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Est. of Neumann Ex Rel. Rodli v. Neumann, 2001 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Kennedy, 396 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1)(b) — 8 cases
State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6 (Wis. 2010).
State v. Friedrich, 398 N.W.2d 763 (Wis. 1987). “" [6] Section 901.03, Stats., provides: "901.03 Rulings on Evidence.”
Haack v. Temple, 442 N.W.2d 522 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Kevin J. McDowell (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Rodriguez, 922 N.W.2d 317 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(2) — 4 cases
State v. Padilla, 329 N.W.2d 263 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
Milenkovic v. State, 272 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Pulizzano, 434 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Jose A. Arevalo-Viera (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(3) — 2 cases
State v. Padilla, 329 N.W.2d 263 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
Milenkovic v. State, 272 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978).
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(4) — 62 cases
State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78 (Wis. 2007). “The majority opinion and the State conclude that the errors and improper conduct were not sufficient to warrant a new trial under any of the three doctrines that protect a fair trial against trial errors: plain error ( Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (4)), interest of justice ( Wis.”
State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60 (Wis. 2008). “See Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (4). I agree with the majority opinion's holding that the unobjected-to errors in the present case constitute plain error.”
State v. Street, 551 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Virgil v. State, 267 N.W.2d 852 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 901.03, Stats., contains the provisions of the Rules of Evidence relating to objections and the review of errors made in the admission or exclusion of evidence.”
State v. Gustafson, 351 N.W.2d 653 (Wis. 1984).
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(l)(a) — 19 cases
State v. Romero, 432 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 1988). “NOTES [1] Section 901.03, Stats., provides in pertinent part: "(1) Effect of Erroneous Ruling.”
Coston v. Joseph P., 586 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Wolff, 491 N.W.2d 498 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Munoz, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Damon, 409 N.W.2d 444 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 901.03(l)(b) — 10 cases
State v. Robinson, 431 N.W.2d 165 (Wis. 1988).
State v. Keith, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Friedrich, 398 N.W.2d 763 (Wis. 1987). “" [6] Section 901.03, Stats., provides: "901.03 Rulings on Evidence.”
State v. Darcy N. K., 581 N.W.2d 567 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Mayhall, 535 N.W.2d 473 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
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.