I am a Deputy District Attorney for Milwaukee County, where I have supervised sensitive crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse prosecutions for the past 10 years. I have been a child abuse prosecutor for an additional 12 years. My concern is with the Council's proposed amendments to 904.04(2)(c), which changes the title of the Greater latitude rule to "Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence Cases". The legislative history for the enactment for what is known as the "greater latitude rule" recognized that the enactment should apply to all "offenses against a child", not just sexual assault offenses. The title, as drafted by the Council, seems to limit the application of the statute, as do the notes found on page 38, which state, "“[a]n additional set of exceptions consists of two provision(s). The first permits the use of “similar” acts in enumerated sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Such similar acts are declared 'admissible.'". The legislation was not just intended to apply to sexual assault and domestic violence cases, and the proposed title change and language explaining the change on pg. 38 may have an unintended limiting effect that is actually contrary to Wisconsin jurisprudence and the legislative history for the statute. I would ask the Council to look at the legislative history of the act, which clearly demonstrates the intended purpose was for the legislation to apply to all chapter 948 offenses (crimes involving child victims). The legislative purpose states, "This bill states that, in a prosecution alleging human trafficking, an offense against a child, a serious sex offense, or a crime of domestic abuse or alleging the defendant committed a crime against his or her spouse, an individual with whom the defendant cohabited, or an individual with whom the defendant has a child, evidence of similar acts is generally admissible, and is admissible regardless of whether the victim of the other act is the same as the offense that is the subject of the prosecution." The research (and law) recognize the overlap between physical violence towards an intimate partner and physical violence towards children in the home. If the legislation is meant to encompass domestic violence, than it follows (and the legislative history demonstrates) that the greater latitude rule also covers all offenses against children, such as those delineated in chapter 948 (physical abuse of a child, child neglect, causing mental harm to a child, etc... ). The proposed changes and comments have a limiting effect on the greater latitude rule by incorrectly reading chapter 948 together with the serious sex offense language when there is coma present separating the two in a list. If the Council's reading were correct, it would further limit the application of the greater latitude rule to sex offenses against adult victims, which is incongruent with Wisconsin caselaw on the statute and the intended purpose of the law (why would the law allow greater latitude on domestic violence against adult victims, but not sexual offenses against adult victims?) I would urge the Council to review the legislative history of the act, its intended purpose, and the language found on pgs. 37-38, which incorrectly limit the application of the rule to "sex crimes and domestic abuse cases", contrary to Wisconsin law and jurisprudence. I have attached the language that addresses the legislative intent for the amended statute.
Attached Files
Submitted by an organization on 10/6/2026 9:30:45 AM