|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED October 31, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1440-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHARON McBRIDE,
Defendant-Appellant,
DEMEATRICE M. TROTTER,
Defendant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
KITTY K. BRENNAN, Judge. Affirmed.
WEDEMEYER, P.J.[1] Sharon McBride appeals from a judgment
entered after a jury found her guilty of battery, as party to the crime,
contrary to §§ 940.19(1) and 939.05, Stats. She claims the trial court erroneously
exercised its discretion in granting the State's motion in limine to exclude
evidence of an altercation that occurred between McBride's victim and McBride's
nephew. Because the trial court did not
erroneously exercise its discretion in excluding this evidence, this court
affirms.
I. BACKGROUND
Sharon Austin, the
victim in this case, resides in McBride's sister's home with McBride's sister's
five children. Austin acts as a foster
parent to these children because their mother is incarcerated. On May 15, 1994, McBride received a
phone call from her father indicating that Austin had kicked her
twelve-year-old nephew out of the house.
In response, McBride and
her boyfriend, Demeatrice Trotter, drove to Austin's residence and a physical
fight ensued. After McBride and Trotter
left, Austin drove herself to the police station to report the incident. Austin had scratches, a swollen lip and
injury to her thumb. McBride and
Trotter were charged with battery, party to the crime.
Prior to trial, the
State moved to exclude evidence of Austin kicking the nephew out of the
house. The trial court granted the
motion on the basis that the incident was irrelevant. The case was tried to a jury, which convicted McBride. McBride now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
McBride claims that the
trial court should not have excluded the evidence of Austin kicking her nephew
out of the house because it was relevant and it was part of her defense. This court is not persuaded.
An appellate court
reviews a trial court's evidentiary rulings according to the erroneous exercise
of discretion standard. See State v.
Pharr, 115 Wis.2d 334, 342, 340 N.W.2d 498, 501 (1983); State v.
Alsteen, 108 Wis.2d 723, 727, 324 N.W.2d 426, 428 (1982). If a trial court applies the proper law to
the established facts, this court will not find an erroneous exercise of
discretion if there is any reasonable basis for the trial court's ruling. Id.
The trial court excluded
this evidence because it found that:
[U]nder
904.04, evidence of other acts, or in this case wrongs of the alleged victim,
Sharon Austin, are not relevant.
They're not relevant to an element of this offense, battery. Although this offense does have an element,
intent, the intent that the State is required to prove is intent on the part of
McBride and Trotter to cause bodily harm.... And it's certainly not relevant to
that. If the defense in this case is
self-defense, evidence of the reason they were all arguing is not relevant to
that under the circumstances as the two lawyers have just offered the Court,
that they're not making the claim Miss McBride or Mr. Trotter acted in defense
of themselves or an innocent third party.
It's irrelevant. And for those
reasons it cannot be elicited from any witnesses at this trial.
... And I could find no case that permitted the
evidence requested here and for that reason find it is irrelevant under
904.03. If it were relevant, I think it
would be highly prejudicial and likely to sidetrack a jury.
The
trial court's reasoning demonstrates that it applied relevant law to the facts
in this case and reached a rational conclusion. Relevant evidence means “evidence having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” See § 904.01, Stats.
The altercation between Austin and the nephew does not satisfy this
legal requirement. Accordingly, this
court concludes that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its
discretion in excluding this evidence.
Further, this court
rejects McBride's claim that excluding this evidence prevented her from
presenting a defense. A defendant's
right to present a defense does not allow the introduction of irrelevant
evidence. State v. Pittman,
174 Wis.2d 255, 275, 496 N.W.2d 74, 82-83, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 137
(1993).
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.