906.09 Annotation Cross-examination on prior convictions without the trial court’s threshold determination under sub. (3) was prejudicial. Gyrion v. Bauer, 132 Wis. 2d 434, 393 N.W.2d 107 (Ct. App. 1986).

906.09 Annotation An accepted guilty plea constitutes a “conviction” for purposes of impeachment under sub. (1). State v. Trudeau, 157 Wis. 2d 51, 458 N.W.2d 383 (Ct. App. 1990).

906.09 Annotation An expunged conviction is not admissible to attack witness credibility. State v. Anderson, 160 Wis. 2d 435, 466 N.W.2d 681 (Ct. App. 1991).

906.09 Annotation Whether to admit evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes requires consideration of: 1) the lapse of time since the conviction; 2) the rehabilitation of the person convicted; 3) the gravity of the crime; and 4) the involvement of dishonesty in the crime. If allowed, the existence and number of convictions may be admitted, but the nature of the convictions may not be discussed. State v. Smith, 203 Wis. 2d 288, 553 N.W.2d 824 (Ct. App. 1996), 94-3350.

906.09 Annotation Evidence that exposed a witness’s prior life sentences and that the witness could suffer no penal consequences from confessing to the crime in question was properly admitted. State v. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753, 98-3105.

906.09 Annotation Even if the circuit court did not expressly state on the record that it considered the possible danger of unfair prejudice, the fact that the court gave a limiting instruction can reveal that the trial court considered the possibly prejudicial nature of evidence and was seeking to ensure that it was properly utilized by the jury in reaching its verdict. State v. Gary M.B., 2004 WI 33, 270 Wis. 2d 62, 676 N.W.2d 475, 01-3393.

906.09 Annotation Neither Seen nor Heard: Impeachment by Prior Conviction and the Continued Failure of the Wisconsin Rule to Protect the Criminal Defendant-Witness. Straka. 2018 WLR 1193.

906.10 906.10 Religious beliefs or opinions. Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’s credibility is impaired or enhanced.

906.10 History History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R184 (1973); 1991 a. 32.

906.11 906.11 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.

906.11(1) (1) Control by judge. The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to do all of the following:

906.11(1)(a) (a) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth.

906.11(1)(b) (b) Avoid needless consumption of time.

906.11(1)(c) (c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

906.11(2) (2) Scope of cross-examination. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. In the interests of justice, the judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination.

906.11(3) (3) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. In civil cases, a party is entitled to call an adverse party or witness identified with the adverse party and interrogate by leading questions.

906.11 History History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R185 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 1999 a. 85.

906.11 Annotation A question is not leading if it merely suggests a subject rather than a specific answer that may not be true. Hicks v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 38, 176 N.W.2d 386 (1970).

906.11 Annotation It is error for a trial court to restrict cross-examination of an accomplice who was granted immunity, but the conviction will not be reversed if the error was harmless. State v. Schenk, 53 Wis. 2d 327, 193 N.W.2d 26 (1972).

906.11 Annotation A defendant who testifies in the defendant’s own behalf may be recalled for further cross-examination to lay a foundation for impeachment. Evidence that on a prior occasion the defendant did not wear glasses and that the defendant had a gun similar to that described by the complainant was admissible when it contradicted the defendant’s earlier testimony. Parham v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 458, 192 N.W.2d 838 (1972).

906.11 Annotation A trial judge should not have stricken the entire testimony of a defense witness for refusal to answer questions bearing on the witness’s credibility that had little to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. State v. Monsoor, 56 Wis. 2d 689, 203 N.W.2d 20 (1973).

906.11 Annotation A trial judge’s admonitions to an expert witness did not give the appearance of judicial partisanship requiring a new trial. Peeples v. Sargent, 77 Wis. 2d 612, 253 N.W.2d 459 (1977).

906.11 Annotation The extent, manner, and right of multiple cross-examinations by different counsel representing the same party can be controlled by the trial court. Hochgurtel v. San Felippo, 78 Wis. 2d 70, 253 N.W.2d 526 (1977).

906.11 Annotation A defendant has no right to be actively represented in court both personally and by counsel. Moore v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 285, 265 N.W.2d 540 (1978).

906.11 Annotation Leading questions were properly used to refresh a witness’s memory. Jordan v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 449, 287 N.W.2d 509 (1980).

906.11 Annotation By testifying to his actions on the day a murder was committed, the defendant waived the self-incrimination privilege on cross-examination as to previous actions reasonably related to the direct examination. Neely v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 38, 292 N.W.2d 859 (1980).

906.11 Annotation Under the facts of this case, the trial judge’s last minute determination to a witness to testify by telephone was an abuse of discretion, which deprived the defendant of the opportunity to have a meaningful cross-examination of the witness. Town of Geneva v. Tills, 129 Wis. 2d 167, 384 N.W.2d 701 (1986).

906.11 Annotation Discussing the use of leading questions in direct examination of a child. State v. Barnes, 203 Wis. 2d 132, 552 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1831.

906.11 Annotation A chart prepared by the prosecutor during a trial, in the jury’s presence, to categorize testimony was not a summary under s. 910.06 but was a “pedagogical device” admissible within the court’s discretion under this section. State v. Olson, 217 Wis. 2d 730, 579 N.W.2d 802 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2142.