Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 971 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 971.18 (2026)

Inadmissibility of statements for purposes of examination

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
971.18971.18 Inadmissibility of statements for purposes of examination. A statement made by a person subjected to psychiatric examination or treatment pursuant to this chapter for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence against the person in any criminal proceeding on any issue other than that of the person’s mental condition.
971.18 HistoryHistory: 1993 a. 486.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Interest of G.B.K. v. State, 376 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Interest of G.B.K. v. State, 376 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Section 971.18, Stats., provides that any statement made by a person subjected to such examination is not admissible against him in a criminal proceeding on any issue other than mental condition, and that is the only issue addressed by the examination.”
Moore v. State, 265 N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 2× “971, Stats., examinations, and argues that principles of equal protection demand that similar limitations be imposed upon ch.”
State v. Holt, 382 N.W.2d 679 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Holt similarly claims that it was error in light of sec. 971.18, Stats., to admit rebuttal testimony from the psychiatrist, Dr.”
Morgan v. Krenke, 72 F. Supp. 2d 980 (E.D. Wis. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Wis. Stat. § 971.18 . The original language of Raskin was more precise on this point: “[C]ompulsory statements and confessions can only be used on the issue of insanity and not in any way upon the issue of guilt.”
State v. Jacobson, 476 N.W.2d 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “The supreme court and, subsequently, the legislature in sec. 971.18, Stats., have protected the defendant's constitutional rights by prohibiting the use of the defendant's psychiatric examinations during the guilt phase of the trial.”
State v. Anthony Kwaame It (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 971.18. Thus, certain statements It made during his examinations, such as his admission that he was given the money in the robbery and then ran off and his comment that “[i]t wasn’t a loogey” when he spit on C.”
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.