Opinion
No. 2013AP167–CR.
2013-11-20
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Donald W. ARENDT, Defendant–Appellant.
After further consideration, the trial court ruled that the other acts were admissible, concluding that they were “[m]aybe not perfectly fitting in every respect, but there are a lot of similarities to the contact”: On appeal, Arendt maintains that the other acts were too dissimilar and remote from the charged offenses to be relevant and that their admission was unfairly prejudicial.