Opinion
No. 2012AP1460–CR.
2013-09-4
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Antonio D. LUCKETT, Defendant–Appellant.
Hunt, 263 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 64, 666 N.W.2d 771 (citations omitted). When assessing remoteness, the court considers “the opportunities presented over that period for the defendant to repeat the acts.” See State v. Clark, 179 Wis.2d 484, 494–95, 507 N.W.2d 172 (Ct.App.1993) (citation omitted). Noting that Luckett was in prison from 2005 to 2009, the court concluded that the earlier evidence of violence directed toward Pamela still was relevant to show context and absence of mistake or accident and, as indicated by the jury instruction it gave, state of mind.