885.12
885.12
Coercing witnesses before officers and boards. If any person, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend as a witness, or to testify as lawfully required before any arbitrator, coroner, medical examiner, board, commission, commissioner, examiner, committee, or other officer or person authorized to take testimony, or to produce a book or paper which the person was lawfully directed to bring, or to subscribe the person's deposition when correctly reduced to writing, any judge of a court of record or a circuit court commissioner in the county where the person was obliged to attend may, upon sworn proof of the facts, issue an attachment for the person, and unless the person shall purge the contempt and go and testify or do such other act as required by law, may commit the person to close confinement in the county jail until the person shall so testify or do such act, or be discharged according to law. The sheriff of the county shall execute the commitment.
885.12 Cross-reference
Cross-reference: See s.
785.06.
885.14
885.14
Disclosure of information and sources by news person. 885.14(1)(1)
Definition. In this section, "news person" means any of the following:
885.14(1)(a)
(a) Any business or organization that, by means of print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, electronic, or other medium, disseminates on a regular and consistent basis news or information to the public, including a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical; book publisher; news agency; wire service; radio or television station or network; cable or satellite network, service, or carrier; or audio or audiovisual production company; and a parent, subsidiary, division, or affiliate of any of these businesses or organizations.
885.14(1)(b)
(b) Any person who is or has been engaged in gathering, receiving, preparing, or disseminating news or information to the public for an entity described in
par. (a), including any person supervising or assisting the person in gathering, receiving, preparing, or disseminating such news or information.
885.14(2)
(2) Subpoenas issued to news person. 885.14(2)(a)(a)
Prohibition. Except as provided in
par. (b), no person having the power to issue a subpoena may issue a subpoena compelling a news person to testify about or produce or disclose any of the following that is obtained or prepared by the news person in the news person's capacity in gathering, receiving, or preparing news or information for potential dissemination to the public:
885.14(2)(a)1.
1. The identity of a confidential source of any news or information.
885.14(2)(a)2.
2. Any information that would tend to identify the confidential source of any news or information.
885.14(2)(a)3.
3. Any news or information obtained or prepared in confidence by the news person.
885.14(2)(a)4.
4. Any news, information, or identity of any source of any news or information that is not described in
subd. 1.,
2., or
3.
885.14(2)(b)
(b)
Procedure before courts. Subject to
par. (c), a circuit court may issue a subpoena to compel a news person to testify about or disclose or produce any news, information, or identity of any source as specified in
par. (a) 4. if the court finds, after notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the news person that the person requesting the subpoena established, based on information obtained from a person other than the news person, one of the following by clear and convincing evidence:
885.14(2)(b)1.
1. In a criminal prosecution or investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred.
885.14(2)(b)2.
2. In a civil action or proceeding that the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
885.14(2)(c)
(c) A circuit court may issue a subpoena under
par. (b) only if all of the following conditions are met:
885.14(2)(c)1.
1. The news, information, or identity of the source is highly relevant to the investigation, prosecution, action, or proceeding.
885.14(2)(c)2.
2. The news, information, or identity of the source is necessary to the maintenance of a party's claim, defense, or to the proof of an issue material to the investigation, prosecution, action, or proceeding.
885.14(2)(c)3.
3. The news, information, or identity of the source is not obtainable from any alternative source for the investigation, prosecution, action, or proceeding.
885.14(2)(c)4.
4. There is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the news, information, or identity of the source.
885.14(3)
(3) Subpoenas issued to persons other than news persons. No person having the power to issue a subpoena may issue a subpoena to compel a person other than a news person to testify about or produce or disclose, information, records, or communications relating to a business transaction between that person and the news person if the purpose of the subpoena is to discover any of the items listed in
sub. (2) (a) 1. to
3.
885.14(4)
(4) Distribution. A disclosure to another person or dissemination to the public of news, information, or the identity of a source as described in
sub. (2) (a) 1. to
4. by a news person does not constitute a waiver of the protection from compelled disclosure under
sub. (2) or
(3).
885.14(5)
(5) Inadmissibility. Any news, information, records, communications, or the identity of a source of any news or information obtained in violation of this section are inadmissible for any purpose in any judicial, legislative, or administrative action, proceeding, or hearing.
885.14 History
History: 2009 a. 400.
885.15(1)(1) No person may be excused from attending, testifying or producing books, papers, and documents before any court in a prosecution under
s. 134.05 on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence required of him or her may tend to incriminate him or her, or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture. No person who testifies or produces evidence in obedience to the command of the court in the prosecution may be liable to any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, for or on account of testifying or producing evidence; provided, that no person may be exempted from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.
885.15(2)
(2) The immunity provided under
sub. (1) is subject to the restrictions under
s. 972.085.
885.15 History
History: 1989 a. 122.
885.16
885.16
Transactions with deceased or insane persons. No party or person in the party's or person's own behalf or interest, and no person from, through or under whom a party derives the party's interest or title, shall be examined as a witness in respect to any transaction or communication by the party or person personally with a deceased or insane person in any civil action or proceeding, in which the opposite party derives his or her title or sustains his or her liability to the cause of action from, through or under such deceased or insane person, or in any action or proceeding in which such insane person is a party prosecuting or defending by guardian, unless such opposite party shall first, in his or her own behalf, introduce testimony of himself or herself or some other person concerning such transaction or communication, and then only in respect to such transaction or communication of which testimony is so given or in respect to matters to which such testimony relates. And no stockholder, officer or trustee of a corporation in its behalf or interest, and no stockholder, officer or trustee of a corporation from, through or under whom a party derives the party's interest or title, shall be so examined, except as aforesaid.
885.16 History
History: 1993 a. 486 885.16 Annotation
Under the dead man's statute if an objection properly made is overruled, the objecting counsel can cross-examine without risk of waiving the objection. However, if an examination exceeds the scope of the direct examination by questions "beyond the scope," and the examiner elicits the very information sought to excluded, such examination "beyond the scope" constitutes a waiver of the objection. Estate of Molay,
46 Wis. 2d 450,
175 N.W.2d 254 (1970).
885.16 Annotation
While the benefit of the dead man's statute is waived when the opposite party opens the door, waiver is not effected when testimony elicited from an interested survivor established only independent facts made up of physical actions of the parties and no inquiry was made into what, if anything, actually transpired between the decedent and the interested survivor with regard to these actions. Johnson v. Mielke,
49 Wis. 2d 60,
181 N.W.2d 503 (1970).
885.16 Annotation
A widow, sued on a note as comaker with her husband, cannot exclude testimony as to transactions with her deceased husband on the ground that her husband had acted as her agent in the transaction when no evidence of agency was presented. Keller Implement Co. v. Eiting,
52 Wis. 2d 460,
190 N.W.2d 508 (1971).
885.16 Annotation
An attorney who drew a will directing that he be retained to probate the estate was not barred from testifying by this section. Casper v. McDowell,
58 Wis. 2d 82,
205 N.W.2d 753 (1973).
885.16 Annotation
An interested person may testify as to overhearing a conversation the deceased had with 2 other persons, also since deceased, while the witness was in another room. Estate of Nale,
61 Wis. 2d 654,
213 N.W.2d 552 (1974).
885.16 Annotation
A company waived the protection of the statute when it presented a principal stockholder's widow as a witness. Younger v. Rosenow Paper & Supply Co.
63 Wis. 2d 548,
217 N.W.2d 841 (1974).
885.16 Annotation
In a petition for proof of heirship by the natural son of the deceased and a cross-petition by the deceased's niece and nephew alleging that the son had been adopted by his aunt, testimony by the cross-petitioner's mother, a sister-in-law of the deceased, as to conversations with the deceased were not precluded by this section because she did not stand to gain or lose from the direct legal operation and the effect of the judgment, and her interest in a judgment in favor of her children was too remote and speculative to bring her within the statute's restrictions. Estate of Komarr,
68 Wis. 2d 473,
228 N.W.2d 681 (1975).
885.16 Annotation
The protection of the dead man's statute was waived when counsel objected to the admissibility of evidence rather than to the competency of the witness. In Matter of Estate of Reist,
91 Wis. 2d 209,
281 N.W.2d 86 (1979).
885.16 Annotation
Deposition questions about a transaction with the decedent did not result in a total waiver of the dead man's statute for purposes of trial. In Matter of Estate of Vorel,
105 Wis. 2d 112,
312 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1981).
885.16 Annotation
The core meaning of this section is that it disqualifies a witness to a transaction or communication with a decedent from testifying about that transaction or communication in his or her favor, or in the favor of any party to the case claiming under the witness. The statute does not preclude an opposing party from calling adversely a witness to a communication or transaction with a decedent. A witness to a communication or transaction with the decedent may not proclaim himself or herself to be incompetent to testify under the statute if no other party makes that objection. Bell v. Neugart,
2002 WI App 180,
256 Wis. 2d 969,
650 N.W.2d 52,
01-2533.
885.16 Annotation
Under ch. 766, the marital property act, in any claim for unpaid wages a non-wage earning spouse has the same interest in the potential income as the spouse who earned the wages. In the case of an unrepaid loan of marital property each spouse would have the same ownership interest. To the extent both spouses have the same ownership interest in the property that gives rise to an action, and the same right to control and manage that property, each spouse's interest in the outcome of the litigation is as present, certain, and vested and each is barred form testifying regarding the transaction. Gerczak v. Gerczak,
2005 WI App 168,
285 Wis. 2d 397,
702 N.W.2d 72,
05-0070.
885.16 Annotation
Established Wisconsin law recognizing that the testimony of a drafting attorney as to the statements made to him or her by the testator is admissible on the question of intent once such extrinsic evidence becomes admissible. Czaplewski v. Shepherd,
2012 WI App 116,
344 Wis. 2d 440,
823 N.W.2d 523,
11-2521.
885.16 Annotation
The core meaning of this section is that it disqualifies a witness to a transaction or communication with a decedent from testifying about that transaction or communication in his or her favor, or in favor of any party to the case claiming under the witness. A witness's interest must be present, certain, and vested, not just a remote or contingent interest. Because any interest in avoiding a threat of malpractice, real or imagined, would be a remote or contingent interest, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting an attorney who drafted a will to testify about the testator's intent. Czaplewski v. Shepherd,
2012 WI App 116,
344 Wis. 2d 440,
823 N.W.2d 523,
11-2521.
885.16 Annotation
A "transaction" under this section means a "mutual transaction between the deceased and the surviving party, one in which they both actively participate." The statute does not bar a witness from testifying as to his or her observations and description of an event or a physical situation, if such testimony does not involve a mutual transaction in which the deceased actively participated. Rutter v. Copper,
2012 WI App 128,
344 Wis. 2d 596,
824 N.W.2d 885,
12-0025.
885.16 Annotation
"Communication," as used in this section, includes statements made to a deceased, irrespective of whether or how the deceased responded. Informing a person about what that person is doing is an effort to communicate something, and so the dead man's statute prohibits testimony about that communication. Rutter v. Copper,
2012 WI App 128,
344 Wis. 2d 596,
824 N.W.2d 885,
12-0025.
885.16 Annotation
Current law expresses disdain for the dead man's statute and requires courts to construe it narrowly and restrict its application whenever possible. Havlicek/Fleisher Enterprise, Inc. v. Bridgeman,
788 F. Supp. 389 (1992).
885.16 Annotation
In order to render a witness incompetent under this section, a party must show: 1) a transaction or communication between the decedent and the witness; 2) the witness has an interest in the matter at hand; and 3) the liability or cause of action of the party advocating incompetency arose through, from, or under the deceased. Schimpf v. Gerald, Inc.
52 F. Supp. 2d 976 (1999).
885.16 Annotation
The Wisconsin Deadman's Statute: The Last Surviving Vestige of an Abandoned Common Law Rule. Stevens. 82 MLR 281 (1998).
885.16 Annotation
The Deadman's Statutes: Who is an Interested Party in Wisconsin? Dibley. 87 MLR 1025 (2004).
885.16 Annotation
Raising the dead man's statute in federal court. Pendleton. Wis. Law. March 1990.
885.17
885.17
Transactions with deceased agent. No party, and no person from, through, or under whom a party derives the party's interest or title, may be examined as a witness in respect to any transaction or communication by the party or person personally with an agent of the adverse party or an agent of the person from, through, or under whom such adverse party derives his or her interest or title, if the agent is dead, mentally ill, or adjudicated incompetent as a witness, unless the opposite party shall first be examined or some other witness in his or her behalf examined in respect to some transaction or communication between the agent and the other party or person; or unless the testimony of the agent, at any time taken, be first read or given in evidence by the opposite party; and then, in either case respectively, only in respect to such the transaction or communication of which testimony is so given or to the matters to which the testimony relates.
885.17 History
History: 1993 a. 486;
2005 a. 387.
885.17 Annotation
The dead man's statute is not available to benefit the automobile insurer of a corporation concerning a transaction whereby an officer-agent accepted title of his wife's automobile for the corporation, since the insurer did not derive its interest "from, through or under" the corporation by virtue of its contract to insure. Knutson v. Mueller,
68 Wis. 2d 199,
228 N.W.2d 342 (1975).
885.17 Annotation
Employees of a party, including corporate employees, are not within the disqualification imposed by this section. Hunzinger Construction Co. v. Granite Resources Corp.
196 Wis. 2d 327,
538 N.W.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1995),
94-1626.
885.205
885.205
Privileged communications. No dean of men, dean of women or dean of students at any institution of higher education in this state, or any school psychologist at any school in this state, shall be allowed to disclose communications made to such dean or psychologist or advice given by such dean or psychologist in the course of counseling a student, or in the course of investigating the conduct of a student enrolled at such university or school, except:
885.205(1)
(1) This prohibition may be waived by the student.
885.205(2)
(2) This prohibition does not include communications which such dean needs to divulge for the dean's own protection, or the protection of those with whom the dean deals, or which were made to the dean for the express purpose of being communicated to another, or of being made public.
885.205(3)
(3) This prohibition does not extend to a criminal case when such dean has been regularly subpoenaed to testify.
885.205 History
History: 1993 a. 486.
885.23
885.23
Genetic tests in civil actions. Whenever it is relevant in a civil action to determine the parentage or identity of any child, person or corpse, the court, by order, shall direct any party to the action and any person involved in the controversy to submit to one or more genetic tests as provided in
s. 767.84. The results of the tests shall be receivable as evidence in any case where exclusion from parentage is established or where a probability of parentage is shown to exist. Whenever the court orders the genetic tests and one of the parties refuses to submit to the tests that fact shall be disclosed upon trial.
885.23 Annotation
Section 767.80 (1) does not permit a man alleging he is the father to bring a paternity action for the sole purpose of establishing paternity of a stillborn so that he may bring a wrongful death action. The proper vehicle for determining parentage is a motion by the father under this section for a determination of parentage within the pending wrongful death action. Shannon E. T. v. Alicia M. V.M.
2007 WI 29,
299 Wis. 2d 601,
728 N.W.2d 636,
05-0077.
885.235
885.235
Chemical tests for intoxication. 885.235(1)(a)
(a) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of a person's blood or the number of grams of alcohol in 210 liters of a person's breath.
885.235(1)(d)
(d) "Restricted controlled substance" means any of the following:
885.235(1)(d)1.
1. A controlled substance included in schedule I under
ch. 961 other than a tetrahydrocannabinol.
885.235(1g)
(1g) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person was under the influence of an intoxicant or had a prohibited alcohol concentration or a specified alcohol concentration while operating or driving a motor vehicle or, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, on duty time, while operating a motorboat, except a sailboat operating under sail alone, while operating a snowmobile, while operating an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle or while handling a firearm, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time in question, as shown by chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood or urine or evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's breath, is admissible on the issue of whether he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant or had a prohibited alcohol concentration or a specified alcohol concentration if the sample was taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved. The chemical analysis shall be given effect as follows without requiring any expert testimony as to its effect:
885.235(1g)(a)
(a) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but less than 0.08 is relevant evidence on the issue of being under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any other drug, but, except as provided in
par. (d) or
sub. (1m), is not to be given any prima facie effect.
885.235(1g)(b)
(b) Except with respect to the operation of a commercial motor vehicle as provided in
par. (d), the fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.04 but less than 0.08 is relevant evidence on the issue of intoxication or an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more but is not to be given any prima facie effect.
885.235(1g)(c)
(c) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant and is prima facie evidence that he or she had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
885.235(1g)(d)
(d) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant with respect to operation of a commercial motor vehicle and is prima facie evidence that he or she had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.
885.235(1k)
(1k) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood while operating or driving a motor vehicle or, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, on duty time, while operating a motorboat, except a sailboat operating under sail alone, while operating a snowmobile, while operating an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle, or while handling a firearm, if a chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood shows that the person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, the court shall treat the analysis as prima facie evidence on the issue of the person having a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood without requiring any expert testimony as to its effect.
885.235(1m)
(1m) In any action under
s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3.,
30.681 (1) (bn),
346.63 (2m) or
(7), or
350.101 (1) (c), evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time in question, as shown by chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood or urine or evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's breath, is admissible on the issue of whether he or she had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in
s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3.,
30.681 (1) (bn),
346.63 (2m), or
350.101 (1) (c) or an alcohol concentration above 0.0 under
s. 346.63 (7) if the sample was taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved. The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but not more than 0.08 is prima facie evidence that the person had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in
s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3.,
30.681 (1) (bn),
346.63 (2m), or
350.101 (1) (c) or an alcohol concentration above 0.0 under
s. 346.63 (7).
885.235(2)
(2) The concentration of alcohol in the blood shall be taken prima facie to be three-fourths of the concentration of alcohol in the urine.
885.235(3)
(3) If the sample of breath, blood or urine was not taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's blood or breath as shown by the chemical analysis is admissible only if expert testimony establishes its probative value and may be given prima facie effect only if the effect is established by expert testimony.
885.235(4)
(4) The provisions of this section relating to the admissibility of chemical tests for alcohol concentration or intoxication or for determining whether a person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing on the question of whether or not a person was under the influence of an intoxicant, had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, had a specified alcohol concentration, or had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in
s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3.,
30.681 (1) (bn),
346.63 (2m) or
350.101 (1) (c).
885.235 Annotation
A blood sample taken under s. 346.71 (2) and forwarded to the department of transportation is admissible in evidence. Luedtke v. Shedivy,
51 Wis. 2d 110,
186 N.W.2d 220 (1971).
885.235 Annotation
Administration of a blood or breath test does not violate a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Driver,
59 Wis. 2d 35,
207 N.W.2d 850 (1973).
885.235 Annotation
When blood alcohol content is tested under statutory procedures, results of the test are mandatorily admissible. The physical sample tested is not evidence intended, required, or even susceptible of being produced by the state under s. 971.23 (4) and (5). State v. Ehlen,
119 Wis. 2d 451,
351 N.W.2d 503 (1984).
