|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED APRIL 30, 1996 |
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. 95-2936
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
In the Interest of
Stanley A. N.,
a person under
the age of 18:
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
STANLEY A. N.,
Respondent-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Bayfield County:
ROBERT E. EATON, Judge. Affirmed.
LaROCQUE,
J. Stanley A. N. appeals an order adjudging him delinquent for
having sexual contact with a three-year-old child. He argues that the trial judge exceeded his authority to
interrogate witnesses by assuming an adversarial role and "coaching the
prosecutor." Because the record
shows that the judge merely clarified the victim's mother's testimony and that
his questions were appropriate and impartial, this court affirms the
order.
After the parties
completed their questioning of the victim's mother, the judge asked her why she
took the child to the hospital, what made her believe the child had been
molested, when the child told her that Stanley had "put his milk bottle
that was by his belly on her," what she thought the child was referring to
when she used the phrase "milk bottle" and what her daughter told her
when asked why her pants were on backwards or inside out. The court overruled hearsay objections[1]
as well as objections to the judge's interrogating the witness. The court then allowed both parties to ask
additional questions in light of the testimony elicited by the trial court.
The trial judge may
interrogate witnesses. See § 906.14(2),
Stats. The judge has the right to clarify questions and answers and make
inquiries where obvious important evidentiary matters are ignored or
inadequately covered by the parties. See
State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d 411, 437, 249 N.W.2d 529, 540-41
(1977). The judge has an obligation to
see to it that justice is done but must do so in an impartial manner. Id. Here, the judge clarified the mother's testimony on matters that
had previously been unclear. The
judge's questions disclose neither improper motive nor partiality. The fact that the testimony was important
and favorable to the State does not establish that the judge functioned as a
partisan or took an improper, active role in trying the case for either
party. Because trial was to the court,
there was no danger of misleading a jury or giving the impression that the
trial court favored the prosecution.
Neither the court's invitation to the parties to ask further questions
nor the fact that the prosecutor later asked similar questions of other
witnesses supports the argument that the judge coached the prosecutor by asking
these questions.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.