Chapter 972

972.11(2)(d)2. 2. The court shall determine the admissibility of evidence under subd. 1. upon pretrial motion before it may be introduced at trial.

972.11(2m) (2m) 

972.11(2m)(a) (a) At a trial in any criminal prosecution, the court may, on its own motion or on the motion of any party, order that the testimony of any child witness be taken in a room other than the courtroom and simultaneously televised in the courtroom by means of closed-circuit audiovisual equipment if all of the following apply:

972.11(2m)(a)1. 1. The court finds all of the following:

972.11(2m)(a)1.a. a. That the presence of the defendant during the taking of the child’s testimony will result in the child suffering serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate.

972.11(2m)(a)1.b. b. That taking the testimony of the child in a room other than the courtroom and simultaneously televising the testimony in the courtroom by means of closed-circuit audiovisual equipment is necessary to minimize the trauma to the child of testifying in the courtroom setting and to provide a setting more amenable to securing the child witness’s uninhibited, truthful testimony.

972.11(2m)(a)2. 2. The trial in which the child may be called as a witness will commence:

972.11(2m)(a)2.a. a. Prior to the child’s 12th birthday; or

972.11(2m)(a)2.am. am. Prior to the child’s 18th birthday if the trial is for a prosecution for a violation of s. 940.302 or 948.051; or

972.11(2m)(a)2.b. b. Prior to the child’s 16th birthday and, in addition to its finding under subd. 1., the court finds that the interests of justice warrant that the child’s testimony be taken in a room other than the courtroom and simultaneously televised in the courtroom by means of closed-circuit audiovisual equipment.

972.11(2m)(b) (b) Among the factors which the court may consider in determining the interests of justice under par. (a) 2. b. are any of the following:

972.11(2m)(b)1. 1. The child’s chronological age, level of development and capacity to comprehend the significance of the events and to verbalize about them.

972.11(2m)(b)2. 2. The child’s general physical and mental health.

972.11(2m)(b)3. 3. Whether the events about which the child will testify constituted criminal or antisocial conduct against the child or a person with whom the child had a close emotional relationship and, if the conduct constituted a battery or a sexual assault, its duration and the extent of physical or emotional injury thereby caused.

972.11(2m)(b)4. 4. The child’s custodial situation and the attitude of other household members to the events about which the child will testify and to the underlying proceeding.

972.11(2m)(b)5. 5. The child’s familial or emotional relationship to those involved in the underlying proceeding.

972.11(2m)(b)6. 6. The child’s behavior at or reaction to previous interviews concerning the events involved.

972.11(2m)(b)7. 7. Whether the child blames himself or herself for the events involved or has ever been told by any person not to disclose them; whether the child’s prior reports to associates or authorities of the events have been disbelieved or not acted upon; and the child’s subjective belief regarding what consequences to himself or herself, or persons with whom the child has a close emotional relationship, will ensue from providing testimony.

972.11(2m)(b)8. 8. Whether the child manifests or has manifested symptoms associated with posttraumatic stress disorder or other mental disorders, including, without limitation, reexperiencing the events, fear of their repetition, withdrawal, regression, guilt, anxiety, stress, nightmares, enuresis, lack of self-esteem, mood changes, compulsive behaviors, school problems, delinquent or antisocial behavior, phobias or changes in interpersonal relationships.

972.11(2m)(b)9. 9. The number of separate investigative, administrative and judicial proceedings at which the child’s testimony may be required.

972.11(2m)(bm) (bm) If a court orders the testimony of a child to be taken under par. (a), the court shall do all of the following:

972.11(2m)(bm)1. 1. To the extent it is practical and subject to s. 972.10 (3), schedule the testimony on a date when the child’s recollection is likely to be fresh and at a time of day when the child’s energy and attention span are likely to be greatest.

972.11(2m)(bm)2. 2. Provide a room for the child to testify from that provides adequate privacy, freedom from distractions, informality and comfort appropriate to the child’s developmental level.

972.11(2m)(bm)3. 3. Order a recess whenever the energy, comfort or attention span of the child or other circumstances so warrant.

972.11(2m)(bm)4. 4. Determine that the child understands that it is wrong to tell a lie and will testify truthfully if the child’s developmental level or verbal skills are such that administration of an oath or affirmation in the usual form would be inappropriate.

972.11(2m)(bm)5. 5. Before questioning by the parties begins, attempt to place the child at ease, explain to the child the purpose of the testimony and identify all persons attending.

972.11(2m)(bm)6. 6. Supervise the spatial arrangements of the room and the location, movement and deportment of all persons in attendance.

972.11(2m)(bm)7. 7. Allow the child to testify while sitting on the floor, on a platform or on an appropriately sized chair, or while moving about the room within range of the visual and audio recording equipment.

972.11(2m)(bm)8. 8. Bar or terminate the attendance of any person whose behavior is disruptive or unduly stressful to the child.

972.11(2m)(c) (c) Only the following persons may be present in the room in which the child is giving testimony under par. (a):

972.11(2m)(c)1m. 1m. Any person necessary to operate the closed-circuit audiovisual equipment.

972.11(2m)(c)2m. 2m. The parents of the child, the guardian or legal custodian of the child or, if no parent, guardian or legal custodian is available or the legal custodian is an agency, one individual whose presence would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the child.

972.11(2m)(c)3m. 3m. One person designated by the attorney for the state and approved by the court and one person designated by either the defendant or the attorney for the defendant and approved by the court.

972.11(3) (3) 

972.11(3)(a) (a) In a prosecution under s. 940.22 involving a therapist and a patient or client, evidence of the patient’s or client’s personal or medical history is not admissible except if:

972.11(3)(a)1. 1. The defendant requests a hearing prior to trial and makes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the evidence; and

972.11(3)(a)2. 2. The court finds that the evidence is relevant and that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial nature.

972.11(3)(b) (b) The court shall limit the evidence admitted under par. (a) to relevant evidence which pertains to specific information or examples of conduct. The court’s order shall specify the information or conduct that is admissible and no other evidence of the patient’s or client’s personal or medical history may be introduced.

972.11(3)(c) (c) Violation of the terms of the order is grounds for a mistrial but does not prevent the retrial of the defendant.

972.11(3m) (3m) A court may not exclude evidence in any criminal action or traffic forfeiture action for violation of s. 346.63 (1) or (5), or a local ordinance in conformity with s. 346.63 (1) or (5), on the ground that the evidence existed or was obtained outside of this state.

972.11(4) (4) Upon the motion of any party or its own motion, a court may order that any exhibit or evidence be delivered to the party or the owner prior to the final determination of the action or proceeding if all of the following requirements are met:

972.11(4)(a) (a) There is a written stipulation by all the parties agreeing to the order.

972.11(4)(b) (b) No party will be prejudiced by the order.

972.11(4)(c) (c) A complete photographic or other record is made of any exhibits or evidence so released.

972.11 History History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R7 (1973); Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 784 (1975); 1975 c. 184, 422; 1979 c. 89; 1981 c. 147 ss. 1, 2; 1983 a. 165, 449; 1985 a. 275; 1987 a. 332 s. 64; 1993 a. 16, 97, 227, 359; 1995 a. 456; 1997 a. 319; 1999 a. 185; 2001 a. 16; 2005 a. 155, 277; 2007 a. 116; 2011 a. 271; 2015 a. 292; 2023 a. 238.

972.11 Annotation Writing about sexual desires or activities was not itself prior “sexual conduct.” The victim’s notes expressing sexual desires and fantasies were, therefore, admissible. State v. Vonesh, 135 Wis. 2d 477, 401 N.W.2d 170 (Ct. App. 1986).

972.11 Annotation Erroneously admitted and false testimony of a victim that the victim was a virgin at the time of a disputed assault so pervasively affected the trial that the issue of consent was not fully tried. State v. Penigar, 139 Wis. 2d 569, 408 N.W.2d 28 (1987).

972.11 Annotation Sub. (2) (b), the rape shield law, bars, with two narrow exceptions, evidence of all sexual activity by a complainant not incident to the alleged assault. State v. Gulrud, 140 Wis. 2d 721, 412 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1987).

972.11 Annotation This section does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. State v. Mitchell, 144 Wis. 2d 596, 424 N.W.2d 698 (1988).

972.11 Annotation In limited circumstances, expert testimony about the consistency of a sexual assault complainant’s behavior with victims of the same type of crime may be offered for the purpose of helping the trier of fact understand the evidence to determine a fact in issue, as long as the expert does not give an opinion about the veracity of the complainant’s allegations. State v. Jensen, 147 Wis. 2d 240, 432 N.W.2d 913 (1988).

972.11 Annotation This section does not on its face violate the constitutional right to present evidence but may in particular circumstances violate that right. To establish the right to present otherwise excluded evidence, the defendant must make an offer of proof establishing five factors, and the court must perform a balancing test. State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990).

972.11 Annotation Summary judgment does not apply to cases brought under the criminal code. State v. Hyndman, 170 Wis. 2d 198, 488 N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1992).

972.11 Annotation Section 805.03 authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with court orders is applicable to criminal actions. State v. Heyer, 174 Wis. 2d 164, 496 N.W.2d 779 (Ct. App. 1993).

972.11 Annotation Sub. (2) requires exclusion of testimony of a victim’s possible prior sexual conduct although when the alleged victim is an eight-year-old child, physical evidence of sexual contact may create an unjust inference that the sexual contact was by sexual assault. Michael R.B. v. State, 175 Wis. 2d 713, 499 N.W.2d 641 (1993).

972.11 Annotation That the complaining witness in a sexual assault case had previously consented to sexual intercourse has virtually no probative value regarding whether the witness consented to sexual intercourse under the use or threat of violence. State v. Neumann, 179 Wis. 2d 687, 508 N.W.2d 54 (Ct. App. 1993).

972.11 Annotation When the state questioned an alleged rapist about the victim’s motive to lie, it did not open the door for admission of evidence of prior acts of consensual sex. State v. Jackson, 216 Wis. 2d 646, 575 N.W.2d 475 (1998), 96-1618.

972.11 Annotation Evidence regarding prior sexual assault by a third party does not fall within one of the statutory exceptions. Applying the Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633 (1990), test. State v. Dodson, 219 Wis. 2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), 96-1306.

972.11 Annotation Not all comparison testimony that an alleged sexual assault victim’s behavior was consistent with that of child sexual assault victims opens the door to cross-examination about the alleged victim’s sexual behavior prior to the alleged assault. State v. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, 250 Wis. 2d 466, 640 N.W.2d 112, 99-2189.

972.11 Annotation This section does not allow a criminal defendant access to the civil subpoena duces tecum power embodied in s. 805.07 (2). State v. Schaefer, 2008 WI 25, 308 Wis. 2d 279, 746 N.W.2d 457, 06-1826.

972.11 Annotation In order to admit evidence of alleged prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault under sub. (2) (b) 3., the circuit court must first conclude from the proffered evidence that a jury could reasonably find that the complainant made prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault. The judge must determine whether a jury, acting reasonably, could find that it is more likely than not that the complainant made prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault. State v. Ringer, 2010 WI 69, 326 Wis. 2d 351, 785 N.W.2d 448, 08-0652.

972.11 Annotation Under sub. (2) (b) 1. and s. 971.31 (11), evidence of the complainant’s alleged past sexual conduct with the defendant is admissible only if the defendant makes a three-part showing that: 1) the proffered evidence relates to sexual activities between the complainant and the defendant; 2) the evidence is material to a fact at issue; and 3) the evidence of sexual contact with the complainant is of sufficient probative value to outweigh its inflammatory and prejudicial nature. In determining that evidence of prior sexual conduct has a highly prejudicial effect, the legislature crafted into the rape shield law a balancing test that assumes, absent an evidentiary showing to the contrary, that the proffered evidence is more prejudicial than probative. State v. Sarfraz, 2014 WI 78, 356 Wis. 2d 460, 851 N.W.2d 235, 12-0337.

972.11 Annotation The exceptions to this section do not require proffered evidence of past sexual conduct between the accuser and the defendant to be the same as the criminal conduct alleged against the defendant. State v. Sarfraz, 2014 WI 78, 356 Wis. 2d 460, 851 N.W.2d 235, 12-0337.

972.11 Annotation Sub. (1) points in two different directions. The rules of civil procedure are applicable generally to criminal proceedings, and the application of the rules of civil procedure mandates reasonable diligence for substituted service of a subpoena. On the other hand, ch. 885 is to apply in all criminal proceedings and s. 885.03 sets forth three manners for service of a subpoena that do not include the reasonable diligence mandate. Because sub. (1) explicitly references it, ch. 885 is the more specific textual provision. Thus, service of a witness subpoena in a criminal proceeding is controlled by s. 885.03, which provides only that “any subpoena may be served by any person by exhibiting and reading it to the witness, or by giving the witness a copy thereof, or by leaving such copy at the witness’s abode.” State v. Wilson, 2017 WI 63, 376 Wis. 2d 92, 896 N.W.2d 682, 15-0671.

972.11 Annotation The broad language used to define “sexual conduct” in the rape shield statute’s prohibition includes evidence concerning a victim’s lack of sexual intercourse. Therefore, the victim’s testimony in this case regarding the victim’s lack of sexual intercourse in the week prior to the sexual assault was improperly admitted. State v. Mulhern, 2022 WI 42, 402 Wis. 2d 64, 975 N.W.2d 209, 19-1565.

972.11 Annotation In this case, testimony regarding the victim’s use of birth control was not barred by sub. (2) (b) because it was connected to the course of conduct of the defendant’s sexual assaults. The evidence of the defendant’s apparent preoccupation with the victim’s continued use of birth control during the time period the defendant was sexually assaulting the victim connects the victim’s use of birth control to the course of the assaultive conduct. State v. Mader, 2023 WI App 35, 408 Wis. 2d 632, 993 N.W.2d 761, 22-0382.

972.11 Annotation This section protects complaining witnesses in sexual assault cases from being questioned about sexual conduct, but a false charge of sexual assault is not sexual conduct. Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (2001).

972.11 Annotation Prior Untruthful Allegations Under Wisconsin’s Rape Shield Law: Will Those Words Come Back to Haunt You? Berry. 2002 WLR 1237.

972.115 972.115 Admissibility of defendant’s statement.

972.115(1) (1) In this section:

972.115(1)(a) (a) “Custodial interrogation” has the meaning given in s. 968.073 (1) (a).

972.115(1)(b) (b) “Law enforcement agency” has the meaning given in s. 165.83 (1) (b).

972.115(1)(c) (c) “Law enforcement officer” has the meaning given in s. 165.85 (2) (c).

972.115(1)(d) (d) “Statement” means an oral, written, sign language, or nonverbal communication.

972.115(2) (2) 

972.115(2)(a) (a) If a statement made by a defendant during a custodial interrogation is admitted into evidence in a trial for a felony before a jury and if an audio or audio and visual recording of the interrogation is not available, upon a request made by the defendant as provided in s. 972.10 (5) and unless the state asserts and the court finds that one of the following conditions applies or that good cause exists for not providing an instruction, the court shall instruct the jury that it is the policy of this state to make an audio or audio and visual recording of a custodial interrogation of a person suspected of committing a felony and that the jury may consider the absence of an audio or audio and visual recording of the interrogation in evaluating the evidence relating to the interrogation and the statement in the case:

972.115(2)(a)1. 1. The person refused to respond or cooperate in the interrogation if an audio or audio and visual recording was made of the interrogation so long as a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement agency made a contemporaneous audio or audio and visual recording or written record of the subject’s refusal.

972.115(2)(a)2. 2. The statement was made in response to a question asked as part of the routine processing of the person.

972.115(2)(a)3. 3. The law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement agency conducting the interrogation in good faith failed to make an audio or audio and visual recording of the interrogation because the recording equipment did not function, the officer or agent inadvertently failed to operate the equipment properly, or, without the officer’s or agent’s knowledge, the equipment malfunctioned or stopped operating.

972.115(2)(a)4. 4. The statement was made spontaneously and not in response to a question by a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement agency.

972.115(2)(a)5. 5. Exigent public safety circumstances existed that prevented the making of an audio or audio and visual recording or rendered the making of such a recording infeasible.

972.115(2)(a)6. 6. The law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation or the law enforcement officer responsible for observing an interrogation conducted by an agent of a law enforcement agency reasonably believed at the commencement of the interrogation that the offense for which the person was taken into custody or for which the person was being investigated, was not a felony.

972.115(2)(b) (b) If a statement made by a defendant during a custodial interrogation is admitted into evidence in a proceeding heard by the court without a jury in a felony case and if an audio or audio and visual recording of the interrogation is not available, the court may consider the absence of an audio or audio and visual recording of the interrogation in evaluating the evidence relating to the interrogation and the statement unless the court determines that one of the conditions under par. (a) 1. to 6. applies.

972.115(4) (4) Notwithstanding ss. 968.28 to 968.37, a defendant’s lack of consent to having an audio or audio and visual recording made of a custodial interrogation does not affect the admissibility in evidence of an audio or audio and visual recording of a statement made by the defendant during the interrogation.

972.115(5) (5) An audio or audio and visual recording of a custodial interrogation shall not be open to public inspection under ss. 19.31 to 19.39 before one of the following occurs:

972.115(5)(a) (a) The person interrogated is convicted or acquitted of an offense that is a subject of the interrogation.

972.115(5)(b) (b) All criminal investigations and prosecutions to which the interrogation relates are concluded.

972.115 History History: 2005 a. 60.

972.115 Annotation Instituting Innocence Reform: Wisconsin’s New Governance Experiment. Kruse. 2006 WLR 645.

972.12 972.12 Sequestration of jurors. The court may direct that the jurors sworn be kept together or be permitted to separate. The court may appoint an officer of the court to keep the jurors together and to prevent communication between the jurors and others.