Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
DECEMBER 27, 1996
NOTICE
A party may file with the Supreme Court                                                This opinion is subject to further editing.
a petition to review an adverse decision                                               If  published,  the  official  version  will
by the Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and                                             appear  in  the  bound  volume  of  the
RULE 809.62, STATS.                                                                    Official Reports.
No.   96-1028-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                     IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID D. BREITENFELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Ashland County:
NORMAN L. YACKEL, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J., LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER  CURIAM.    David  Breitenfeld  appeals  his  conviction  for
repeated sexual assault of the same child in violation of § 948.025(1), STATS.,
after a trial by jury.   At trial, the victim recanted her charges and denied that
Breitenfeld had committed any sexual acts.   Over Breitenfeld's objection, the
trial  court  admitted  Breitenfeld's                                                  1989  written  statement  admitting  sexual
activities  with  children  six-years  before  the  charged  offense.    On  appeal,
Breitenfeld  argues  that  the  1989 written  statement  constituted inadmissible
other bad acts evidence and that the jury used this inadmissible character




No.   96-1028-CR
evidence to find Breitenfeld committed the offense.   We reject this argument
and affirm Breitenfeld's conviction.
We first conclude that Breitenfeld's  1989 written statement was
admissible  on  the  issues  of  intent  and  motive.    The  trial  court  made  a
discretionary decision.  State v. Plymesser, 172 Wis.2d 583, 591, 493 N.W.2d 367,
371 (1992).   Unless Breitenfeld affirmatively conceded intent, the State had to
prove it as an element of the crime.   Breitenfeld did not concede intent, and the
State therefore had the right to introduce the written statement for this purpose
under Plymesser.   See id. at 593-95, 493 N.W.2d at 372-73.   In addition, we have
no power to overrule the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Plymesser,
and  we  therefore  decline  to  address  Breitenfeld's  claim  that  Plymesser
misapplies the rules of evidence.
Having established the relevance of the statement, we must review
the  court's  determination  that  the  statement's  probativeness  substantially
outweighs any unfair prejudice.   See State v. Peters, 192 Wis.2d 674, 695, 534
N.W.2d 867, 875 (Ct. App. 1995).   This determination is within the trial court's
discretion and will be affirmed as long as the record discloses a reasonable basis
for the court's decision.   Id.   Here, the court weighed the relative probativeness
against the potential prejudice of Breitenfield's 1989 statement and determined
the statement's probativeness substantially outweighed any prejudice.    The
record discloses the court had a reasonable basis for admitting this statement.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court was within its discretion in admitting
the statement.
Because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the
court's finding that the 1989 statement was relevant and we must deferentially
review the trial court's weighing of the probative value of the evidence against
its  prejudicial  nature,  we  conclude  the  court  did  not  err  in  admitting
Breitenfield's statement.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS.
-2-

Download 10663.pdf

Wisconsin Law