State v. Veach, No. 98-2387-CR.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Citation | 2002 WI 110,648 N.W.2d 447,255 Wis.2d 390 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2387-CR. |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Michael L. VEACH, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Petitioner. |
| Decision Date | 16 July 2002 |
255 Wis.2d 390
2002 WI 110
648 N.W.2d 447
v.
Michael L. VEACH, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Petitioner
No. 98-2387-CR.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Oral argument January 11, 2002.
Decided July 16, 2002.
For the defendant-appellant-cross petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Suzanne Hagopian, assistant state public defender.
¶ 1. DAVID T. PROSSER, J.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals that reversed a judgment of the Circuit Court for Waushara County, Lewis R. Murach, Judge. State v. Veach, 2001 WI App 143, 246 Wis. 2d 395, 630 N.W.2d 256. The circuit court had entered a judgment of conviction against Michael L. Veach on two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals reversed the convictions.
¶ 2. The two counts stemmed from allegations by a ten-year-old girl, Rebecca L. (Becky), that Veach had sexually assaulted her on two separate occasions when she was seven years old. Both incidents allegedly occurred when Becky and her family were camping with Veach and his girlfriend. Becky claimed that Veach had touched her vagina while the two were lying on a hammock, and touched her vagina and buttocks while they were spending the night in Veach's van. Veach pleaded not guilty to each count and asserted that he had not touched Becky "inappropriately".
¶ 3. The State filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking the admission of other acts evidence of Veach's
¶ 4. A jury found Veach guilty of both counts. Veach then filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that his trial counsel had failed to inform him of the possibility of a Wallerman1 stipulation, in which Veach would stipulate to certain elements of the crime of first-degree sexual assault of a child, thereby preventing the State from introducing other acts evidence against him. The circuit court denied Veach's motion.
¶ 5. Veach appealed, alleging that the other acts evidence was inadmissible, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Id. at ¶ 1. The court of appeals reversed his conviction in a split-decision. Id. It determined that the other acts evidence was admissible but also determined that, pursuant to State v. DeKeyser, 221 Wis. 2d 435, 585 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1998), Veach's trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by not informing Veach that he could enter into a Wallerman stipulation. Veach, 2001 WI App 143, ¶¶ 31, 41-42.
¶ 6. The State filed a petition for review, and Veach filed a cross-petition for review. We granted both petitions.
¶ 7. The issues in this case concern the admission of other acts evidence, Wisconsin's "greater latitude" rule for admission of other acts evidence in cases involving children and sex crimes, stipulations to elements of crimes, and the standards for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶ 9. We determine that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting the other acts evidence in this case. Our determination is based on application of the three-part test for admission of other acts evidence established in State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998), and the greater latitude rule, which was re-affirmed by this court in State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, and State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629. We determine that a defendant may offer to stipulate to elements of or defenses to crimes, but neither the State nor the circuit court is obligated to accept the stipulation offer. Finally, we determine that a defense counsel who fails to offer to stipulate to an element or a defense in a criminal case has not necessarily provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, Veach's trial counsel did not offer a stipulation, but the circuit judge stated at Veach's postconviction hearing that he would not have accepted a stipulation even if it had been offered. We conclude that trial counsel's failure to offer such a stipulation, even if it constituted deficient performance, did not result in prejudice to Veach, and therefore did not render his counsel ineffective.
¶ 10. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
¶ 11. Becky, the victim in this case, told Detective Curtis Olson of the Waushara County Sheriff's Department2 on January 27, 1997 that a man named "Michael," later identified as Michael Veach,3 had touched her vagina and buttocks on two occasions a few years earlier.4 Becky told Olson that Veach had touched her "butt," under her clothes, while they were in his van and had touched her "pee pee," under her clothes, when they were in a hammock.
¶ 12. Detective Olson contacted Veach on February 2, 1997, and told him of the allegations. That same day, Veach went to see Olson and voluntarily gave a statement.5 The exchange between Olson and Veach went in part, as follows:
Olson: Okay. What, what's your side? You know, what have you got to tell me about it?
Veach: It didn't happen. I don't know what else to tell you, you know.
Olson: What about the time in the van? She claims that you touched her in the van.
255 Wis.2d 400Veach: Oh, that was the night she stayed in the van because it was so cold and I told her that, I carried her to the bathroom, brought her back, got her wrapped back up in a sleeping bag, and she still said she was cold and I kinda rubbed her back and her legs and everything else through the sleeping bag trying to warm her up.
Olson: Okay. So there's no, no other contact with her?
Veach: No other contact.
Olson: Okay. You were both clothed at the time?
Veach: Completely.
Olson: There's another time that she is alleging that you, you touched her inappropriately. Um, and that was the time in the hammock. Um, what can you tell me about that?
Veach: I don't know. They, I was swinging in the hammock, she wanted to get in with me. There's other people around. It just didn't happen.
¶ 13. Veach was charged with two counts of sexual assault of a child, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.02(1) (1993-94),6 on May 16, 1997. The probable cause portion of the complaint referred to the statement Becky gave to Olson, as well as reports made by Dr. Marianne Niles of the Fond du Lac County Department of Community Programs. The complaint indicated that Becky had told Dr. Niles about the incidents in the hammock and in the van. Becky stated that "Michael was lying in the hammock and that she had joined him in a reclined position; lying on top of him in a manner whereby they were facing the same direction and her back was
¶ 14. Dr. Niles' report further stated that Becky had told of a second incident, occurring when she and Veach were spending the night in Veach's van. Becky said they left the van to go to the bathroom, and when they returned, she laid down on her stomach, and Veach "began rubbing her on her stomach, back, bottom and butt." According to the report, Becky asserted that Veach "rubbed her upon these areas inside of her clothing," but that he did not "invade any part of her body."
¶ 15. The State filed a motion in limine seeking the admission of other acts evidence; it also filed a notice of intent to offer admissions made by Veach. It sought to present evidence relating to Veach's 1988 conviction for first-degree sexual assault, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(1) (1985-86). The 1988 conviction stemmed from allegations by Veach's daughter that he had sexually assaulted her in 1983, when she was nine years old and Veach was living with her and her mother. Veach's daughter told Detective Christ Tzakais of the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department about two incidents in great detail. The first incident involved Veach allegedly removing his clothes and his daughter's
¶ 16. Veach gave a statement to Detective Tzakais in which he admitted virtually all his daughter's allegations regarding the first incident. He did not specifically deny the other incidents but told Tzakais that he only remembered the first incident. He acknowledged, however, that the other incidents could have occurred. Veach then pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to one year in the county jail,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Payano, No. 2007AP1042-CR.
...is sometimes referred to as Whitty evidence. See Holmes v. State, 76 Wis.2d 259, 266, 251 N.W.2d 56 (1977); see also State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶ 46, 255 Wis.2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447 (referring to other acts evidence under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2) as "Whitty evidence"); 7 Daniel D. Blinka, Wi......
-
State v. Dorsey, No. 2015AP648-CR
...was within its discretion in holding 379 Wis.2d 416that intent and motive to control were permissible purposes. See, e.g., State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶58, 255 Wis. 2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447.¶42 Moreover, this was a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. Under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(......
-
Frost v. Whitbeck, No. 01-0327.
...Insurance Co., 362 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1966), the court found that although an uncle-in-law is not as closely related as the mother-in-law 2002 WI 110 in Jackson, for purposes of automobile liability insurance, the degree of relationship did not matter. The purpose was to exclude all relativ......
-
State v. Franklin, No. 00-2426.
...show that the person has a 677 N.W.2d 282 certain character and the acts denied are consistent with his or her character. State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶ 48, 255 Wis. 2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447. As the statute explains, "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the ch......
-
State v. Payano, No. 2007AP1042-CR.
...is sometimes referred to as Whitty evidence. See Holmes v. State, 76 Wis.2d 259, 266, 251 N.W.2d 56 (1977); see also State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶ 46, 255 Wis.2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447 (referring to other acts evidence under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2) as "Whitty evidence"); 7 Daniel D. Blinka, Wi......
-
State v. Dorsey, No. 2015AP648-CR
...was within its discretion in holding 379 Wis.2d 416that intent and motive to control were permissible purposes. See, e.g., State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶58, 255 Wis. 2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447.¶42 Moreover, this was a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. Under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(......
-
Frost v. Whitbeck, No. 01-0327.
...Insurance Co., 362 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1966), the court found that although an uncle-in-law is not as closely related as the mother-in-law 2002 WI 110 in Jackson, for purposes of automobile liability insurance, the degree of relationship did not matter. The purpose was to exclude all relativ......
-
State v. Franklin, No. 00-2426.
...show that the person has a 677 N.W.2d 282 certain character and the acts denied are consistent with his or her character. State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110, ¶ 48, 255 Wis. 2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447. As the statute explains, "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the ch......