901.04
901.04
Preliminary questions. 901.04(1)
(1)
Questions of admissibility generally. Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to
sub. (2) and
ss. 971.31 (11) and
972.11 (2). In making the determination the judge is bound by the rules of evidence only with respect to privileges and as provided in
s. 901.05.
901.04(2)
(2) Relevancy conditioned on fact. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.
901.04(3)
(3) Hearing out of the presence of a jury. Hearings on any of the following shall be conducted out of the presence of the jury:
901.04(3)(b)
(b) In actions under
s. 940.22, admissibility of evidence of the patient's or client's personal or medical history.
901.04(3)(d)
(d) Any preliminary matter if the interests of justice so requires.
901.04(4)
(4) Testimony by accused. The accused does not, by testifying upon a preliminary matter, subject himself or herself to cross-examination as to other issues in the case.
901.04(5)
(5) Weight and credibility. This section does not limit the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility.
901.04 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 W (2d) R1, R14 (1975);
1975 c. 184,
421;
1985 a. 275;
1987 a. 332 s.
64;
1991 a. 32,
269;
1993 a. 97,
227;
1995 a. 456.
901.04 Annotation
See note to art. I, sec. 8, citing State v. Ewald, 63 W (2d) 165, 216 NW (2d) 213.
901.04 Annotation
Statements given police, without Miranda warnings, while defendant was injured and in bed, that he was the driver and had been drinking, while voluntary, were inadmissible, since at that time accusatorial attention had focused on him. Scales v. State, 64 W (2d) 485, 219 NW (2d) 286.
901.04 Annotation
Discussion of totality of circumstances test as to a confession. Brown v. State, 64 W (2d) 581, 219 NW (2d) 373.
901.04 Annotation
Stipulation to admissibility of polygraph examiner's opinion made before test does not foreclose challenge of manner of testing and sufficiency of data supporting opinion. State v. Mendoza, 80 W (2d) 122, 258 NW (2d) 260.
901.04 Annotation
Court's refusal to permit defendant's experts to impeach polygraph examiner at admissibility hearing was reversible error. McLemore v. State, 87 W (2d) 739, 275 NW (2d) 692 (1979).
901.04 Annotation
See note to 907.02, citing State v. Dalton, 98 W (2d) 725, 298 NW (2d) 398 (Ct. App. 1980).
901.04 Annotation
Defendant had no confrontation clause rights as to hearsay at pretrial motion hearing; trial court could rely on hearsay in making its decision. State v. Frambs, 157 W (2d) 700, 460 NW (2d) 811 (Ct. App. 1990).
901.04 Annotation
Sub. (1) permits an out-of-court declaration by a party's alleged co-conspirator to be considered by the trial court in determining whether there was a conspiracy. State v. Whitaker, 167 W (2d) 247, 481 NW (2d) 649 (Ct. App. 1992).
901.04 Annotation
See note to 906.09, citing 63 Atty. Gen. 424.
901.04 Annotation
In making preliminary factual determinations, courts may examine the very evidence, including hearsay statements, sought to be admitted. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 US 171 (1987).
901.05
901.05
Admissibility of certain test results. 901.05(1)
(1) In this section, "HIV" means any strain of human immunodeficiency virus, which causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
901.05(2)
(2) Except as provided in
sub. (3), the results of a test or tests for the presence of HIV, antigen or nonantigenic products of HIV or an antibody to HIV and the fact that a person has been ordered or required to submit to such a test or tests under
s. 938.296 (4) or
968.38 (4) are not admissible during the course of a civil or criminal action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding, as evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion unless the evidence is admissible under
s. 904.04 (1) or
904.05 (2) and unless the following procedures are used:
901.05(2)(a)
(a) The court may determine the admissibility of evidence under this section only upon a pretrial motion.
901.05(2)(b)
(b) Evidence which is admissible under this section must be determined by the court upon pretrial motion to be material to a fact at issue in the case and of sufficient probative value to outweigh its inflammatory and prejudicial nature before it may be introduced at trial.
901.05(3)
(3) The results of a test or tests under
s. 938.296 (4) or
968.38 (4) and the fact that a person has been ordered to submit to such a test or tests under
s. 938.296 (4) or
968.38 (4) are not admissible during the course of a civil or criminal action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding.
901.06
901.06
Limited admissibility. When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
901.06 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 W (2d) R1, R21 (1973).
901.06 Annotation
Admissibility for purpose of establishing identity prevails over inadmissibility for another purpose. State v. Stawicki, 93 W (2d) 63, 286 NW (2d) 612 (Ct. App. 1979).
901.07
901.07
Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements. When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the party at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
901.07 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 W (2d) R1, R22 (1973);
1991 a. 32.
901.07 Annotation
The rule of completeness requires a statement, including otherwise inadmissible evidence, be admitted in its entirety when necessary to explain an admissible portion of the statement. The rule is not restricted to writings or recorded statements. State v. Sharp, 180 W (2d) 640, 511 NW (2d) 316 (Ct. App. 1993).
901.07 Annotation
A party's use of an out-of-court statement to show an inconsistency does not automatically give the opposing party the right to introduce the whole statement. Under the rule of completeness, the court has discretion to admit only those statements necessary to provide context and prevent distortion. State v. Eugenio, 219 W (2d) 391, 579 NW (2d) 642 (1998).
901.07 Annotation
This section apples to written and recorded statements. The rule of completeness for oral statements is encompassed within s. 906.11 State v. Eugenio, 219 W (2d) 391, 579 NW (2d) 642 (1998).
