Wis. Stat. § 906.02
Lack of personal knowledge
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
906.02906.02 Lack of personal knowledge. A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of s. 907.03 relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
906.02 AnnotationThe chain of custody to items taken from the defendant’s motel room was properly established although a police department laboratory chemist who examined the same was not present to testify when uncontroverted proof showed that the condition of the exhibits had not been altered by the chemist’s examination, there was no unexplained or missing link as to who had had custody, and the items were in substantially the same condition at the time of the chemist’s examination as when taken from defendant’s room. State v. McCarty, 47 Wis. 2d 781, 177 N.W.2d 819 (1970).
906.02 AnnotationA challenge to the admissibility of boots on the ground that the victim did not properly identify them was devoid of merit, as it was stipulated that the child said they “could be” the ones the child saw. The child’s lack of certitude did not preclude admissibility, but went to the weight the jury should give to the testimony. Howland v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 162, 186 N.W.2d 319 (1971).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas P. Wuensch
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas P. Wuensch (2018)
“Citing Wis. Stat. §§ 906.02 ("A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”
Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc. (2001)
“Wis. Stat. § 906.02 ("Evidence to prove personal knowledge may.”
State v. Kleser (2010)
“Wis. Stat. § 906.02 ("A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”
PALISADES COLLECTION LLC v. Kalal (2010)
“See also Wis. Stat. § 906.02 (prohibiting a witness from testifying on a matter unless there is sufficient evidence that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter).”
Gross v. Woodman's Food Market, Inc. (2002)
“§ 906.02; [22] and *215 Woodman's transportation costs were supplied by Woodman's discovery responses.”
State v. Denton (2009)
“See Wis. Stat. § 906.02 . Section 906.02 provides: Lack of personal knowledge.”
D.L. Ex Rel. Friederichs v. Huebner (1983)
“That the evidence negates the occurrence of an event, such as evidence that there was no hole in the highway, or that there were no similar accidents with similar wagons, rather than affirms the occurrence of an event does not render the testimony inadmissible.”
State v. Shillcutt (1984)
“” If the majority is convinced this is not competent evidence under sec. 906.02(2), Stats., then there is no need to consider the other two phases of the After Hour test.”
Recall of Jensen v. Miesbauer (1984)
“Section 906.02, Stats. Although Miesbauer testified that he personally knew most of the signatories, the trial court refused to allow testimony showing that he had personal knowledge of the circumstances of their signing the petitions.”
State v. Brion Lamar Hatcher (2025)
“§ 906.02, which provides, in relevant part, that “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”
State v. Baumann (2018)
“…unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter." Wis. Stat. § 906.02 .”
Baier v. McDermott (2024)
“) In Eison, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that when a defendant seeks to impeach a verdict under Section 906.02, the defendant must show “(1) that the juror’s testimony concerns extraneous information (rather than the deliberative process of the jurors), (2) that the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.02(2) — 1 case
State v. Shillcutt (1984)
“” If the majority is convinced this is not competent evidence under sec. 906.02(2), Stats., then there is no need to consider the other two phases of the After Hour test.”
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.