Facts
- Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez was charged with first-degree sexual assault of a child under Wis. Stat. § 948.02(1), based on allegations that he licked and digitally penetrated the vaginal area of a six-year-old girl, the granddaughter of the woman with whom he lived.
- Before trial, Santana-Lopez told police he would take “a polygraph and DNA tests.”
- During trial, the State raised the concern that Santana-Lopez might testify about his offers to take these tests.
- The circuit court ruled that testimony about offers to take a polygraph and DNA testing was “inadmissible and irrelevant,” and entered an order that “no such testimony shall be offered.”
- The prosecutor clarified that the State’s primary request was to exclude polygraph-related evidence and noted that DNA testing is a legally recognized form of proof; the circuit court nonetheless kept the blanket exclusion in place.
- Santana-Lopez wanted to testify that he offered DNA testing to show his state of mind (that he believed he was innocent) and to support his credibility.
- The circuit court did not allow Santana-Lopez to present that testimony or to lay a foundation showing what he believed about DNA testing at the time he made the offer.
- The jury convicted Santana-Lopez, and he appealed the exclusion of evidence regarding his offer to undergo DNA testing.
Issues
- Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion by excluding, as “not relevant,” Santana-Lopez’s testimony that he offered to submit to DNA testing, without allowing him to lay a foundation showing the offer’s relevance to his state of mind and credibility?
Decision
- The Court of Appeals held the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by ruling that Santana-Lopez’s offer to undergo DNA testing was irrelevant.
- The court concluded an offer to undergo DNA testing may be relevant to a defendant’s state of mind and credibility if the defendant believed the testing was possible, accurate, and admissible.
- Because the circuit court barred the evidence categorically and did not permit the defense to establish the foundation for admissibility, the ruling rested on an incorrect view of relevance.
- The judgment of conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Legal Principles
- Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. (Wis. Stat. § 904.01.)
- Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. (Wis. Stat. § 904.03.)
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion; a court errs when it applies the wrong legal standard or rests its decision on an incorrect view of the law.
- An offer to take a scientific test can bear on credibility and state of mind, and may be admissible for that purpose when the proponent can show the offeror believed the test was possible, accurate, and admissible.
- A trial court must allow the proponent a fair chance to lay the foundation supporting relevance before excluding the evidence as irrelevant.
Conclusion
State v. Santana-Lopez holds that a defendant’s offer to undergo DNA testing cannot be excluded simply as “irrelevant” without considering whether it tends to show the defendant’s state of mind and credibility and without allowing the defendant to lay a foundation that he believed the test was possible, accurate, and admissible; because the circuit court barred the evidence on an incorrect legal basis, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.