Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 904 — EVIDENCE — RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 904.01 (2026)

Definition of “relevant evidence”

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
904.01904.01 Definition of “relevant evidence”. “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
904.01 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R66 (1973).
904.01 AnnotationEvidence of a defendant’s expenditure of money shortly after a burglary was properly admitted. State v. Heidelbach, 49 Wis. 2d 350, 182 N.W.2d 497 (1971).
904.01 AnnotationDiscussing the difference between relevancy and materiality. If counsel fails to state the purpose of a question objected to on grounds of immateriality, the court may exclude the evidence. State v. Becker, 51 Wis. 2d 659, 188 N.W.2d 449 (1971).
904.01 AnnotationThe introduction of a portion of a bloodstained mattress was both relevant and material by tending to make more probable the prosecution’s claim that the victim had been with the defendant and had been molested by the defendant. Bailey v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 331, 222 N.W.2d 871 (1974).
904.01 AnnotationThe most important factor in determining the admissibility of evidence of conduct prior to an accident is the degree of probability that the conduct continued until the accident occurred. Evidence of the defendant’s reckless driving 12 miles from the accident scene was irrelevant. Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371, 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977).
904.01 AnnotationEvidence of crop production in other years was admissible to prove damages for injury to a crop. Cutler Cranberry Co. v. Oakdale Electric Cooperative, 78 Wis. 2d 222, 254 N.W.2d 234 (1977).
904.01 AnnotationA complaining witness’s failure to appear to testify on two prior trial dates was not relevant to the credibility of the witness. Rogers v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 682, 287 N.W.2d 774 (1980).
904.01 AnnotationTestimony that weapons were found at the accused’s home was admissible as part of a chain of facts relevant to the accused’s intent to deliver heroin. State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis. 2d 514, 302 N.W.2d 810 (1981).
904.01 AnnotationEvidence of a defendant’s prior sexual misconduct was irrelevant when the only issue in a rape case was whether the victim consented. State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d 723, 324 N.W.2d 426 (1982). But see State v. Seaton, 2024 WI App 68, 414 Wis. 2d 415, 16 N.W.3d 20, 21-1399.
904.01 AnnotationEvidence of post-manufacture industry custom was admissible under the facts of a products liability case. Evidence of a good safety record of the product was not relevant. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581, 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983).
904.01 AnnotationHuman leukocyte antigen and red blood cell test results showing the probability of exclusion and the paternity index are generally admissible in a criminal sexual assault action in which the assault allegedly resulted in the birth of a child, but the probability of paternity is not generally admissible. State v. Hartman, 145 Wis. 2d 1, 426 N.W.2d 320 (1988).
904.01 AnnotationThird-party testimony corroborating the victim’s testimony against one defendant was relevant as to a second defendant charged with different acts when the testimony tended to lend credibility to the victim’s testimony against the second defendant. State v. Patricia A.M., 176 Wis. 2d 542, 500 N.W.2d 289 (1993).
904.01 AnnotationEvidence of noncriminal conduct to negate the inference of criminal conduct is generally irrelevant. State v. Tabor, 191 Wis. 2d 482, 529 N.W.2d 915 (Ct. App. 1995).
904.01 AnnotationEvidence of why a defendant did not testify has no bearing on guilt or innocence, is not relevant, and is inadmissible. State v. Heuer, 212 Wis. 2d 58, 567 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3594.
904.01 AnnotationA psychologist’s testimony that the defendant did not show any evidence of having a sexual disorder and that absent a sexual disorder a person is unlikely to molest a child was relevant. State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis. 2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2737. See also State v. Davis, 2002 WI 75, 254 Wis. 2d 1, 645 N.W.2d 913, 00-2916.
904.01 AnnotationA negative gunshot residue test cannot conclusively prove that a person was not the shooter of a gun, but it is relevant as it has a tendency to make it less probable. State v. DelReal, 225 Wis. 2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-1480.
904.01 AnnotationThere is neither a blanket restriction of Richard A.P., 223 Wis. 2d 777 (1998), evidence nor is it compelled. Courts must scrutinize the evidence on a case-by-case basis to assess admissibility. State v. Walters, 2004 WI 18, 269 Wis. 2d 142, 675 N.W.2d 778, 01-1916.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 394 cases (126 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86 (Wis. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 48× “04 (2); (2) the evidence was relevant under Wis. Stat. § 904.01 ; and (3) the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Wis.”
State v. Franklin, 2004 WI 38 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 32× “The circuit court analyzed the evidence pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.01 for relevancy; concluded that it was relevant; determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, pursuant to Wis.”
State v. Marinez, 2011 WI 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 17× “'s identification of Marinez, and the time and location of the sexual abuse, to provide context, including regarding M.”
State v. Joel M. Hurley, 2015 WI 35 (Wis. 2015). · cites it 17× “" Wis. Stat. § 904.01 (2011- 12). There are two parts to a relevancy analysis: first, "whether the evidence relates to a fact or proposition that is of consequence to the determination of the action," and second, "whether the evidence has a tendency to make a consequential fact…”
State v. Thornon F. Talley, 2017 WI 21 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 20× “" Wis. Stat. § 904.01 . 4 See also Arends, 325 Wis.”
State v. Jones (In Re Commitment of Jones), 911 N.W.2d 97 (Wis. 2018). · cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. § 904.01 . 19 No. 2015AP2665 admissible and why.”
State v. Pittman, 496 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 12× “Second, under the foregoing facts, whether expert testimony on the stages of sleep, the effects of alcohol on sleep, and the amount of stimulation needed to arouse someone from sleep was properly excluded by the trial court under sec. 904.01, Stats., and sec. 907.02. Third,…”
State v. David Gutierrez, 2020 WI 52 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 6× “See Wis. Stat. §§ 904.01 , 904.03. Additionally, the State asserted that the indication of unidentified male DNA on the swabs would invite speculation as to why male DNA would be around A.”
State Ex Rel. Off. of the State Pub. Def. v. Court of Appeals, 2013 WI 31 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 15× “¶43 We caution practitioners to exercise sound discretion when citing information from a PSI. A PSI may contain very sensitive information.”
State v. O'BRIEN, 588 N.W.2d 8 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 12× “"Relevant evidence" is defined by Wis. Stat. § 904.01 (1995-96) [2] as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Brown Cnty. v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 8× “She's making *330 progress, in my opinion, psychologically, and I don't see that there would be a likelihood that there would be damage to these children from what I've read in the notes and evaluating her. 2. Exercise of discretion ¶ 116.”
State v. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 8× “Second, a court must determine whether the other acts evidence is relevant under Wis. Stat. § 904.01 . Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 772 .”
Show all 394 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 904.01(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Joel M. Hurley, 2015 WI 35 (Wis. 2015). “" Wis. Stat. § 904.01 (2011- 12). There are two parts to a relevancy analysis: first, "whether the evidence relates to a fact or proposition that is of consequence to the determination of the action," and second, "whether the evidence has a tendency to make a consequential fact…”
— Wis. Stat. § 904.01(4)(b) — 1 case
Avonelle M. Kissack Living Trust v. Am. Transmission Co., LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
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.