## Facts

- Baker was prosecuted under Wisconsin law for allegedly consenting to indecent use of his genitals by a 15-year-old boy.
- The State’s case depended almost entirely on the boy’s uncorroborated testimony describing the alleged incident.
- Baker denied the accusation and offered defense witnesses whose testimony tended to cast doubt on the complainant’s account.
- To impeach the complainant, Baker called a pastor familiar with the complainant and asked about the complainant’s general reputation in the community for truth and veracity.
- The trial court sustained the State’s objection and excluded the pastor’s reputation testimony.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Baker whether he had made himself available for a lie-detector test; defense counsel objected, the objection was sustained, and no answer was admitted.
- A jury convicted Baker.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by excluding defense testimony about the complainant’s general reputation for truth and veracity where credibility was central and the State relied on uncorroborated testimony.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s unanswered question about Baker’s willingness to take a polygraph test required reversal.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court erred in excluding admissible reputation evidence offered to impeach the complainant’s credibility, and the error was prejudicial in a case turning on a single witness’s veracity.
- The prosecutor’s polygraph question was improper, but the error was not an independent basis for reversal because the objection was promptly sustained, no answer was received, and no mistrial or curative instruction was sought.

## Legal Principles

- A party may impeach a witness by introducing evidence of the witness’s general reputation in the community for truth and veracity.
- When the prosecution’s proof rests primarily on an uncorroborated witness, exclusion of competent impeachment evidence bearing on that witness’s truthfulness can be prejudicial and require a new trial.
- References to polygraph tests, including questions about willingness to submit, are improper because polygraph evidence is inadmissible and such references risk unfair prejudice.
- An isolated, unanswered polygraph question may be treated as harmless where an objection is sustained immediately and no further relief is requested.

## Conclusion

Because the case turned on the complainant’s credibility and the defense was wrongly prevented from presenting admissible reputation impeachment evidence, the conviction was reversed and the matter was remanded for a new trial; the improper polygraph question did not, by itself, warrant reversal under the circumstances.


State v. Baker, 114 N.W.2d 426 (Wis. 1962)