By: Derek Hawkins//August 9, 2017//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Roy Kennard Weatherall
Case No.: 2016AP1368-CR; 2016AP1369-CR
Officials: Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Gundrum, J.
Focus: Court Error – Abuse of Discretion
Trial courts have “broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence[,] … [and] we will upset their decisions only where they have erroneously exercised that discretion.” State v. Nelis, 2007 WI 58, ¶26, 300 Wis. 2d 415, 733 N.W.2d 619 (citation omitted; alteration in original). We will find an erroneous exercise of discretion if the record shows that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion, the facts fail to support its decision, or if the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. State v. Roou, 2007 WI App 193, ¶14, 305 Wis. 2d 164, 738 N.W.2d 173.
Weatherall complains that the State was allowed to ask LG questions on direct that improperly presented evidence to the jury. He contends that, by framing its questions in the form of, “Do you recall telling the police that ___,” the jury heard inadmissible hearsay. Weatherall claims that through that technique, the State was able to impart objectionable information such as that he said he was a pimp; he asked LG to join his group of “girls” and brought up her stripping; he told LG he took girls out of town to prostitute themselves; he told LG he would put her in charge of all the girls if she joined them; LG overheard him tell another girl, Tasha,4 he was going to “beat her ass”; and she later observed Tasha with a black eye after being with Weatherall, although LG earlier had testified that she noticed nothing unusual about Tasha’s appearance. Weatherall challenges the court’s overruling of his counsel’s continuing objection to LG’s testimony as inadmissible hearsay and argues that allowing the jury to hear this back-door hearsay testimony contributed to his convictions.