Wis. Stat. § 901.06
Limited admissibility
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
901.06901.06 Limited admissibility. When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
901.06 AnnotationAdmissibility for the purpose of establishing identity prevails over inadmissibility for another purpose. State v. Stawicki, 93 Wis. 2d 63, 286 N.W.2d 612 (Ct. App. 1979).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: State v. Payano
State v. Payano (2009)
“[22] See Wis. Stat. § 901.06 ("When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury…”
In Interest of Michael RB (1993)
“See Sec. 901.06, Stats. [6] Having set forth the legal guidelines with which we review a judge's evidentiary rulings, we turn to the excluded evidence forming the basis for this appeal and address each of Michael's five evidentiary challenges in order.”
State v. Gavigan (1983)
“Third, upon request the jury's consideration of the evidence must be limited to the purpose *158 for which it was admitted in accordance with sec. 901.06, Stats., which provides: "Limited admissibility.”
State v. Quinsanna D. (2002)
“Significantly, Quinsanna did not request a limiting instruction under Wis. Stat. § 901.06 . 7 As the supreme court has explained, however, despite a failure to present post-verdict motions, "the appeals court has jurisdiction over a timely appeal and may in its discretion…”
State v. Spraggin (1977)
“we cannot say that the evidence of the occurrence herein was of so little probative value as contrasted to its possible prejudicial effect that the trial judge abused his discretion in letting it in.”
Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital (1980)
“Once admissible for the purpose of showing the existence and availability of information, Misericordia’s remedy at trial was to ask for a limiting instruction pursuant to sec. 901.06, Stats., if it believed that the evidence was to be used to establish Dr.”
Cranmore v. State (1978)
“Therefore, the trial judge was authorized by statute to admit the evidence for that limited purpose under sec. 901.06, Stats. 22 However, the statute cannot be applied in a fashion which violates the constitutional rights of the other defendants.”
D.L. Ex Rel. Friederichs v. Huebner (1983)
“Since Huebner Implement failed to request a limiting instruction, sec. 901.06, Stats. 1979-80, we conclude that there was no error.”
Pohl v. State (1980)
“"The Judicial Council Committee's Note-1974 appended to sec. 901.06, Stats., which permits introduction of evidence which is admissible for only limited purposes or only as to one party, states: `S.”
State v. Staples (1980)
“Sec. 901.06, Stats. Its failure to do so before the court ordered the testimony stricken constitutes a waiver of the argument that the testimony was admissible for any purpose.”
State v. Sveum (2009)
“§ 901.06 (2005-06) provides: "When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury…”
State v. Mitchell (1988)
“conditions which should be met in order for evidence of the complainant’s prior conduct to be admissible: (1) the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct was offered to prove a fact which is relevant to an issue in the case; (2) the probative value of the evidence is…”
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.