Opinion
Nos. 2013AP1930–CR, 2013AP1931–CR, 2013AP1932–CR, 2013AP1933–CR.
2014-06-24
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Kyle E. PERZ, Defendant–Appellant.
The language in Sprang derives from Williams, 249 Wis.2d 492, ¶ 48, 637 N.W.2d 733. The “personalizing” described in Williams consisted of the assistant district attorney's declaration of her personal opinion which “created the impression that the prosecutor was arguing against the negotiated terms of the plea agreement.” The court concluded the prosecutor may not “personalize the information, adopt the same negative impressions as [the author of the presentence investigation report] and then remind the court that the [author] had recommended a harsher sentence than recommended.” In this case, the prosecutor's “personalization,” consisting of putting himself in the victims' fathers' shoes, does not have the same meaning as the prohibited “personalization” described in Williams and Sprang. Here, the prosecutor's comments were similar to those approved in Naydihor, and provided no basis for Perz's counsel to object.