Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Sorenson

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided September 20, 2001No. 98-3107Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDykman, J.

¶ 37. (concurring in part; dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that the judgment in this matter should be reversed. But I would remand for a trial at which Sorenson would be permitted to introduce evidence of the victim's recantation. The jury could then weigh that testimony, Sorenson's possible testimony, and the testimony of the other witnesses to determine whether it was substantially probable that Sorenson would engage in acts of sexual violence in the future.

¶ 38. I also agree with the majority that trial courts are not barred from applying the doctrine of offensive issue…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Michelle T. Ex Rel. Sumpter v. CrozierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Ayers v. City of RichmondCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. Paige K. B. v. Steven G. B.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Ambrose v. Continental Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API