Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (2026)
Applicability of rules of evidence
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
911.01(1)(1) Courts and court commissioners. Chapters 901 to 911 apply to the courts of the state of Wisconsin, including municipal courts and circuit, supplemental, and municipal court commissioners, in the proceedings and to the extent hereinafter set forth except as provided in s. 972.11. The word “judge” in chs. 901 to 911 means judge of a court of record, municipal judge, or circuit, supplemental, or municipal court commissioner.
911.01(2)(2) Proceedings generally. Chapters 901 to 911 apply generally to proceedings in civil and criminal actions.
911.01(3)(3) Privileges; oath. Chapter 905 with respect to privileges applies at all stages of all actions, cases and proceedings; s. 906.03 applies at all stages of all actions, cases and proceedings except as provided in ss. 901.04 (1) and 911.01 (4), and ch. 908.
911.01(4)(4) Rules of evidence inapplicable. Chapters 901 to 911, other than ch. 905 with respect to privileges or s. 901.05 with respect to admissibility, do not apply in the following situations:
911.01(4)(a)(a) Preliminary questions of fact. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the judge under s. 901.04 (1).
911.01(4)(b)(b) Grand jury; John Doe proceedings. Proceedings before grand juries or a John Doe proceeding under s. 968.26.
911.01(4)(c)(c) Miscellaneous proceedings. Proceedings for extradition or rendition; sentencing, granting or revoking probation, modification of a bifurcated sentence under s. 302.113 (9g), or adjustment of a bifurcated sentence under s. 973.195 (1r) or 973.198; hearings for the freezing of assets of a person charged with financial exploitation of an elder person or adult at risk under s. 971.109; issuance of subpoenas or warrants under s. 968.375, arrest warrants, criminal summonses, and search warrants; hearings under s. 980.09 (2); proceedings under s. 971.14 (1r) (c); proceedings with respect to pretrial release under ch. 969 except where habeas corpus is utilized with respect to release on bail or as otherwise provided in ch. 969; or proceedings under s. 165.76 (6) to compel provision of a biological specimen for deoxyribonucleic acid analysis.
911.01(5)(a)(a) In a restitution hearing under s. 973.20 (13), the rules of evidence are subject to waiver under s. 973.20 (14) (d).
911.01(5)(b)(b) When hearing evidence as to the factors that determine a restitution order under s. 800.093, the rules of evidence are subject to waiver under s. 800.093 (8) (b).
911.01 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R366 (1973); 1977 c. 305 s. 64; 1977 c. 345; 1979 c. 32 s. 92 (16); 1981 c. 183, 367, 390, 391; 1987 a. 208, 398; 1991 a. 40, 269; 2001 a. 61, 109; 2005 a. 434; 2009 a. 24, 28, 214, 261, 349; 2011 a. 38, 257; 2011 a. 260 s. 81; 2013 a. 165; 2021 a. 76; 2025 a. 149.
911.01 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1981: Sub. (4) (c) has been amended to exempt so-called McCredden hearings under s. 971.14 (1) (c) from the rules of evidence. [Bill 765-A]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 (Wis. 2002).
State v. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 (Wis. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (4)(c); Hammill v. State, 52 Wis.”
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 911.01(1) clearly states that the rules of evidence "apply to the courts of the state of Wisconsin .”
State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “the existence of a privilege," § 901.04(1), STATS. [6] Thus, we must determine whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist's account of a patient's disclosure, which provided…”
State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88 (Wis. 2010). “§ 911.01(2) provides that the rules of evidence "apply generally to proceedings in civil and criminal actions.”
Johnson v. Rogers Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 2005 WI 114 (Wis. 2005). “" Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (3). The purpose of the privilege is to prevent unnecessary disclosure of "confidential" communications.”
State v. Jiles, 2003 WI 66 (Wis. 2003). “This exemption is "restate[d], for convenience," in Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (4)(a): The judge decides, when ruling upon a motion to suppress evidence, whether the defendant's statement or other physical evidence was come in by violation of a constitutional right or Miranda .”
State v. Sorenson, 421 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. 1988). “02, unless they were permitted under one of the hearsay exceptions.”
State v. Wideman, 556 N.W.2d 737 (Wis. 1996). “Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (4)(c). 26 According to the record the circuit court furnished the defendant the complaint at his initial appearance.”
State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “2d 647 (2003); Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (4)(c) (rules of evidence are inapplicable to sentencing proceedings).”
Muetze v. State, 243 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. 1976). “Section 911.01, entitled “Applicability of rules of evidence” provides in pertinent part: “(3) Privileges: oath.”
State v. Kunkel, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “We reject his contentions. The clergyman privilege, sec.”
State v. Hereford, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 911.01(2), Stats., provides that chs.”
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(1) — 1 case
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 911.01(1) clearly states that the rules of evidence "apply to the courts of the state of Wisconsin .”
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(2) — 8 cases
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 911.01(1) clearly states that the rules of evidence "apply to the courts of the state of Wisconsin .”
State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88 (Wis. 2010). “§ 911.01(2) provides that the rules of evidence "apply generally to proceedings in civil and criminal actions.”
State v. Sorenson, 421 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. 1988). “02, unless they were permitted under one of the hearsay exceptions.”
State v. Hereford, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 911.01(2), Stats., provides that chs.”
Mitchell v. State, 267 N.W.2d 349 (Wis. 1978).
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(3) — 2 cases
State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “the existence of a privilege," § 901.04(1), STATS. [6] Thus, we must determine whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist's account of a patient's disclosure, which provided…”
State v. Kunkel, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “We reject his contentions. The clergyman privilege, sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(4) — 4 cases
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 911.01(1) clearly states that the rules of evidence "apply to the courts of the state of Wisconsin .”
State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88 (Wis. 2010). “§ 911.01(2) provides that the rules of evidence "apply generally to proceedings in civil and criminal actions.”
State v. Pope, 321 N.W.2d 359 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Hereford, 537 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 911.01(2), Stats., provides that chs.”
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(4)(a) — 1 case
State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “the existence of a privilege," § 901.04(1), STATS. [6] Thus, we must determine whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist's account of a patient's disclosure, which provided…”
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(4)(c) — 7 cases
State v. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 (Wis. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 911.01 (4)(c); Hammill v. State, 52 Wis.”
State v. Anderson, 588 N.W.2d 75 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Mosley, 547 N.W.2d 806 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Hays, 496 N.W.2d 645 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Koeppen, 536 N.W.2d 386 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wis. Stat. § 911.01(4)(d) — 3 cases
Jalal Kareem Khoury v. Am. Honda Motor Co. Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Morris S. Reece v. Carson D. Combs (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Hughes v. Folker, 687 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
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.