Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 906.13 (2026)
Prior statements of witnesses
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
906.13(1)(1) Examining witness concerning prior statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown or its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel upon the completion of that part of the examination.
906.13(2)(a)(a) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless any of the following is applicable:
906.13(2)(a)1.1. The witness was so examined while testifying as to give the witness an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement.
906.13(2)(b)(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s. 908.01 (4) (b).
906.13 AnnotationA witness for the defense could be impeached by prior inconsistent statements to the district attorney even though made in the course of plea bargaining as to a related offense. Taylor v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 453, 190 N.W.2d 208 (1971).
906.13 AnnotationA statement by a defendant, not admissible as part of the prosecution’s case because it was taken without the presence of the defendant’s counsel, may be used on cross-examination for impeachment if the statement is trustworthy. Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973).
906.13 AnnotationA bright line test for determining whether a defendant’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment is whether it was compelled. State v. Pickett, 150 Wis. 2d 720, 442 N.W.2d 509 (Ct. App. 1989).
906.13 AnnotationThis section is applicable in criminal cases. A defense investigator’s reports of witness interviews are statements under sub. (1) but only must be disclosed if defense counsel has examined the witness concerning the statements made to the investigator. State v. Hereford, 195 Wis. 2d 1054, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-1596.
906.13 AnnotationA prior inconsistent statement is admissible under sub. (2) without first confronting the witness with that statement. Under sub. (2) (a) 2. and 3. extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements is admissible if the witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the case or if the interest of justice otherwise requires its admission. State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118, 254 Wis. 2d 654, 648 N.W.2d 15, 01-1662.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: State v. Nelis, 2007 WI 58 (Wis. 2007).
State v. Nelis, 2007 WI 58 (Wis. 2007). “¶ 30 Nelis further argues that Steve Stone's oral statements were inadmissible under Wis. Stat. § 906.13 (2)(a). Section 906.13(2)(a) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless any of the following is applicable: 1.”
State v. Hereford, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “We also conclude *1063 that although certain reports of witness interviews were erroneously ordered disclosed under § 906.13, Stats., that error was not prejudicial and did not violate Hereford's right to counsel.”
State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “introduce these statements as prior inconsistent state *660 ments pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 906.13 . The trial court excluded the statements, ruling that a proper foundation had not been laid pursuant to § 906.”
State v. Honig, 2016 WI App 10 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.13 (2)(a)l. 5 The trial court's ruling to the contrary (that if Cruz denied such a conversation, defense counsel would not be permitted to impeach Cruz) was incorrect.”
State v. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “03(3) or the 'prior inconsistent statement' provision set forth in Wis. Stat. § 906.13 (2)(a)." Notably, the trial court, in its postconviction ruling, recognized the possible application of the "state of mind" exception to the hearsay rule, Wis.”
State v. Angel Mercado, 2020 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “would not speak while on the stand, which in turn would not provide a meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. ¶53 Thus, the State contends that N.”
State v. Gustafson, 332 N.W.2d 848 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “Instead, it comes under sec. 906.13, Stats., concerning prior statements of witnesses.”
State v. Gustafson, 351 N.W.2d 653 (Wis. 1984). “'s no contest plea fell within sec. 906.13, Stats., which allows extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement of a witness.”
Thomas Socha v. Reed Richardson, 874 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2017). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.13 . This is so even though, for some lines of questioning, Socha would have been stuck with Holm’s answers, since the transcript would have been inadmissible as extrinsic evidence on collateral matters.”
State v. Echols, 499 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 1993). “2 The defendant argues that the trial court's ruling was contrary to sec. 906.13, Stats., 3 and prevented her from effectively cross-examining Detective Barber in *675 violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin…”
State v. Pulizzano, 434 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “See sec. 906.13, Stats. The state questions the similarity of the two events, relying on Padilla .”
Casey v. Frank, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (E.D. Wis. 2004). “See Wis. Stat. § 906.13 . Moreover, there is a more than negligible chance that such statements would have affected the outcome of the trial because they would have undercut the credi *1017 bility of the state’s major witnesses on the principal question at issue.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.13(1) — 1 case
State v. Hereford, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “We also conclude *1063 that although certain reports of witness interviews were erroneously ordered disclosed under § 906.13, Stats., that error was not prejudicial and did not violate Hereford's right to counsel.”
— Wis. Stat. § 906.13(2) — 3 cases
State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “introduce these statements as prior inconsistent state *660 ments pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 906.13 . The trial court excluded the statements, ruling that a proper foundation had not been laid pursuant to § 906.”
State v. Fry, 385 N.W.2d 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Marquise Lamont Brown (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 906.13(2)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Nelis, 2007 WI 58 (Wis. 2007). “¶ 30 Nelis further argues that Steve Stone's oral statements were inadmissible under Wis. Stat. § 906.13 (2)(a). Section 906.13(2)(a) provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless any of the following is applicable: 1.”
State v. Smith, 2002 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “introduce these statements as prior inconsistent state *660 ments pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 906.13 . The trial court excluded the statements, ruling that a proper foundation had not been laid pursuant to § 906.”
State v. Angel Mercado, 2020 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “would not speak while on the stand, which in turn would not provide a meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. ¶53 Thus, the State contends that N.”
State v. Salar Zangana (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
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.