State v. Hunt, 01-0272-CR.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Citation | 263 Wis.2d 1,666 N.W.2d 771,2003 WI 81 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-0272-CR.,01-0272-CR. |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. John P. HUNT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 02 July 2003 |
263 Wis.2d 1
2003 WI 81
666 N.W.2d 771
v.
John P. HUNT, Defendant-Appellant
No. 01-0272-CR.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Oral argument April 9, 2003.
Decided July 2, 2003.
For the defendant-appellant there was a brief by Rex R. Anderegg and Anderegg & Mutschler, LLP, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Rex R. Anderegg.
¶ 1. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
This is a review of a court of appeals' decision, which reversed the circuit court's conviction of John P. Hunt (Hunt) on six criminal counts, including two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, one count of repeated sexual assault of the same child, one count of first-degree sexual assault causing pregnancy of a child, one count of
¶ 2. This court is presented with the following issues: (1) Does a circuit court commit reversible error if it fails to provide a detailed Sullivan2 analysis for admitting other-acts evidence? (2) Is an appellate court required to perform an independent review of the record for permissible bases for admitting other-acts evidence if the circuit court fails to adequately provide a Sullivan analysis, or alternatively states an impermissible basis for the admission of such evidence? (3) Is an appellate court required to reverse a defendant's convictions on all counts if the circuit court states an improper basis for the admission of other-acts evidence? (4) Is the court afforded greater latitude when applying the Sullivan analysis in cases dealing with sex crimes, especially where a child victim is involved?
¶ 3. We hold that the appellate court erred in reversing the conviction of Hunt on all six counts. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals. Although the circuit court could have provided a more detailed or exhaustive Sullivan analysis for admitting the other-acts evidence in this case, reversal was not appropriate here.
¶ 4. Additionally, pursuant to the well-established independent review doctrine in Wisconsin, we hold that the court of appeals is required independently to review the record if the circuit court fails to provide a detailed Sullivan analysis. Based upon our independent review of the record, we hold that there were reasonable bases justifying the circuit court's decision to admit the other-acts
¶ 5. In addition to holding that there were permissible purposes, we hold that the other-acts evidence was relevant and probative. Moreover, we hold that the circuit court's cautionary jury instructions on the other-acts evidence mitigated any potential danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or undue delay.
¶ 6. Here, where permissible purposes existed for the admission of other-acts evidence, and where strong DNA evidence had been introduced, we hold that the court of appeals was not correct in reversing the convictions on all counts. The conviction on the charge of first-degree sexual assault causing pregnancy should have been upheld, even if there were not permissible purposes for the admission of other-acts evidence.
¶ 7. Finally, we hold that the circuit court properly applied the greater latitude rule in allowing other-acts evidence in this case where there were charges of sex crimes, especially since child victims were involved.
I. FACTS
¶ 8. The facts of this case are undisputed. John Patrick Hunt (Hunt) lived with his wife, Ruth,5 and their six children. In 1988 Angelica J. and her three children, 15-year-old Tiffany and two other daughters, Lana and April, moved in with Hunt in a marital-type relationship. Angelica and her children resided with Hunt, Ruth, and the other children, in what was a
¶ 9. In 1998 Tiffany J. (Angelica's daughter from a previous relationship and 15 years old at the time) gave birth to a son, Isaiah. The DNA testing subsequently established that Hunt was the father of Tiffany's child. At the time of this dispute, the Hunt household had 13 people living in it: Hunt; his two "wives," Ruth and Angelica; and ten minor children.
¶ 10. On September 21, 1999, Ruth and Angelica took the children to the police station and reported that Hunt had threatened them and others in the household. Ruth informed Milwaukee police officers that she was afraid to return home, and that her husband had threatened their lives.
¶ 11. Based on the information provided in the police report the police officers accompanied them back to their home. Ruth and the others waited in the car about a half-block away, while the officers went to the premises. At the home the officers arrested Hunt and allowed the others back inside.
¶ 12. After the arrest of Hunt police officers interviewed members of the family. Officers learned that Hunt frequently smoked crack cocaine and would force the entire family into the upstairs portion of the home, which was without running water, for the duration of his drug use. It was also revealed, through these interviews, that Hunt would force either Tiffany or Angelica J. to have sexual intercourse with him while he was smoking crack cocaine.
¶ 13. Hunt was charged by the Milwaukee County District Attorney, E. Michael McCann, with six criminal counts, including two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, one count of repeated sexual assault
¶ 14. After the charges were filed the victims and witnesses recanted their statements to police officers and refused further cooperation with the prosecution.
¶ 15. On February 28, 2000, as a result of the women's refusal to cooperate, the prosecutor filed a pre-trial motion in limine seeking, inter alia, the introduction of other-acts evidence that Hunt had physically and sexually abused Ruth, Tiffany, and Angelica. Under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2) (1997-98) evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character of a person to show that he acted in conformity therewith, but may be permitted for purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.6 In support of its motion, the prosecution
¶ 16. With respect to the other-acts evidence of Hunt's drug use, the prosecution argued that those allegations (e.g., that he constantly smoked crack) provided the necessary background for understanding Hunt's behavior and provided an independent source of information about the credibility of the victims' stories.
¶ 17. Defense counsel, Thomas M. Bartell,7 filed a brief in opposition to the motion in limine, and the prosecutor later filed a supplemental motion to admit evidence that Hunt had previously used drugs. The supplemental motion listed three reasons for the inclusion of the other-acts evidence: (1) as part of the corpus of the crimes; (2) context and necessary background information; and (3) for corroboration of the information previously given to police, since the witnesses were recanting their stories.
¶ 18. The circuit court held a pre-trial motion hearing, where the prosecutor repeated the arguments for the other-acts evidence, and also pointed out that the evidence would help the jury understand the recantations by the witnesses, as well as the circumstances of the case. In addition, the prosecutor argued that the evidence showed an absence of mistake on Hunt's part and that the evidence showed opportunity and motive. Over defense objections Judge Dennis P. Moroney granted the State's motion in limine and allowed the State to introduce some of the other-acts evidence it requested.8
The Court would find that the threshold requirements of a 904.04 other acts evidence have been satisfied in this case. I think there is not much question about that just based upon what I have heard, and also what I have read in the case and also the certain...263 Wis.2d 17amount of information that has been provided but then certainly—certainly denied at various times, and it goes to the credibility of the people, I grant you, but it—but it also goes to whether or not contextually in this
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson, Appeal No. 2018AP2318-CR
...the night of his death provides evidence of K.M.’s state of mind, context, and K.M.’s motive16 for attacking Johnson. See State v. Hunt , 2003 WI 81, ¶59, 263 Wis. 2d 1, 666 N.W.2d 771 (stating that one basis for other-acts evidence was to show victim's state of mind); State v. C.V.C. , 153......
-
State v. Hurley, 2013AP558–CR.
...for an erroneous exercise of discretion.” State v. Marinez, 2011 WI 12, ¶ 17, 331 Wis.2d 568, 797 N.W.2d 399 (citing State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶ 34, 263 Wis.2d 1, 666 N.W.2d 771 ). A reviewing court will uphold a circuit court's evidentiary ruling if it “ ‘examined the relevant facts, appl......
-
State v. Lock, 2011AP699–CR.
...737. We are required to independently review the record if the trial court does not provide a detailed Sullivan analysis. State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶ 4, 263 Wis.2d 1, 666 N.W.2d 771. As such, because the trial court did not perform a Sullivan analysis in this case, our review is de novo. S......
-
State v. Jensen, 2009AP898–CR.
...9. This three-part test has sometimes been worded differently, apparently combining the second and third step into one step. State v. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, ¶ 32 n. 11, 263 Wis.2d 1, 666 N.W.2d 771 (citing State v. Pharr, 115 Wis.2d 334, 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983), which held that circuit courts must......