Witness Credibility

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Deborah L. O’Neal v. Daniel L. Yoakum

Case No.: 2018AP1793

Officials: BLANCHARD, J.

Focus: Witness Credibility

Deborah O’Neal, pro se, appeals a money judgment against her in the amount of $180, in favor of Daniel Yoakum, in this small claims action. Yoakum fails to file a responsive brief.  O’Neal initiated this action against Yoakum, seeking a money judgment on the ground that she used one of her credit cards to purchase a refrigerator and stove for his use, after the two agreed that he would pay her back, and that he has refused to pay all that he owes on this alleged agreement.

O’Neal fails to develop a clear legal argument of any kind. But I now address my best understandings of what she intends to argue. A number of potential arguments all fail because they involve allegations or positions that O’Neal failed to support with evidence before the circuit court or that she failed to argue clearly to the circuit court. O’Neal suggests that the circuit court “would not allow” O’Neal to pursue a pertinent topic, and flatly asserts that “the Circuit Court favored Mr. Yoakum.” These arguments are completely unsupported. O’Neal references trial testimony that could support a finding that Yoakum planned the purchase of the appliances, without her knowledge, well in advance of the date of the purchase, which she suggests undermines the testimony that she gifted the appliances to Yoakum. But in referencing what she calls Yoakum’s “premediation” to make the purchases, O’Neal fails to explain how any such alleged “premediation”—even if it had been found to be true by the circuit court—would undermine Yoakum’s theory that O’Neal agreed, at or around the time of their joint visit to the Sears store, to buy the appliances as gifts for Yoakum.

The remaining potential arguments appear to boil down to the following: the circuit court should have fully credited pertinent testimony of O’Neal and the witness that she called, and should have given no weight to pertinent testimony of Yoakum and the witnesses that he called. These suggestions all fail for at least the reason that O’Neal fails to take into account the fact that circuit courts, not appellate courts, determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony, due in part to the unique opportunity of circuit courts to observe the demeanor and persuasiveness of each witness. See Lessor v. Wangelin, 221 Wis. 2d 659, 665, 586 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998). I affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.