## Facts

- Steven Maichle (age 9) and Scott Jonovic (age 8) were neighborhood schoolmates whose friendship had deteriorated.
- Scott testified that, for several weeks before the incident, Steven and another boy repeatedly bullied him (e.g., knocking books from his hands, taking his ball, restraining him while threatening a fight, name-calling, chasing his dog, and throwing stones/gravel).
- On November 18, 1970, the boys were on a school bus where Scott testified he was hit by the other boys and threatened with a beating at his stop.
- Scott testified he got off the bus early and, as he passed Steven’s seat, swung and struck Steven in the mouth; Steven then chased him.
- Steven admitted prior “scuffling” but disputed key details, including whether Steven hit Scott on the bus; witnesses provided conflicting accounts.
- Steven (through a guardian) and his parents sued Scott and his parents for civil battery and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether any credible evidence supported the jury’s finding that Scott’s striking of Steven was justified as self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred by changing the jury’s special verdict answer on justification from “Yes” to “No” after the verdict.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
- The court reinstated the jury’s finding that Scott struck Steven “with justification.”
- The court held that credible evidence, viewed most favorably to the verdict, permitted a reasonable jury to find self-defense based on prior bullying, threats, and the immediate circumstances.
- The court concluded the trial court impermissibly reweighed evidence and made credibility determinations when it changed the special verdict answer.

## Legal Principles

- A court may change a jury’s answer to a special verdict only when there is no credible evidence to support the jury’s finding and the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion.
- When reviewing a jury verdict, the question is whether any credible evidence, under any reasonable view, supports the verdict; conflicts in testimony and credibility choices are for the jury.
- In a civil battery claim, self-defense can justify a use of force where the actor reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful interference, and the force used is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
- Evidence of prior threats and ongoing harassment may be relevant to the reasonableness of a defendant’s belief that defensive force was necessary.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained credible evidence supporting the jury’s determination that Scott acted in self-defense, the trial court lacked authority to overturn that finding by changing the special verdict, and the defendants prevailed on reinstatement of the jury’s justification determination.


Maichle v. Jonovic, 230 N.W.2d 789 (Wis. 1975)