State v. Pittman

127 Citing cases

  1. State v. Watson

    227 Wis. 2d 167 (Wis. 1999)   Cited 83 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the testimony of an expert witnesses who relies on inadmissible hearsay is itself admissible in evidence

    ¶ 41. Expert testimony is admissible only if it is relevant. State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 267, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 845 (1993); Wis. Stat. § 904.01. Moreover, its admissibility depends on whether it will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

  2. State v. Morgan

    195 Wis. 2d 388 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 72 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing relevance of expert testimony regarding post-traumatic stress disorder based on defendant's "psycho-social" history

    "Expert testimony is admissible only if it is relevant." State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 267, 496 N.W.2d 74, 79, cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 137 (1993). "`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

  3. State v. Richardson

    189 Wis. 2d 418 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    In Richardson, 189 Wis.2d 418, 525 N.W.2d 378, a case decided the year before Morgan's appellate decision, the Wisconsin court of appeals precisely delineates the scope of permissible expert testimony on battered women's syndrome, without suggesting that specific limitations on such testimony present a trial management concern.

    At the outset, we note that in Wisconsin, the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is assessed in light of § 907.02, STATS. State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 267, 496 N.W.2d 74, 79, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 137 (1993). That section allows expert testimony if it "assist[s] the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

  4. State v. Magett

    2014 WI 67 (Wis. 2014)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing nature and history of bifurcated trials resulting from NGI pleas

    Whether expert testimony is required in a given case is a discretionary decision left to the circuit court. See State v. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, ¶ 23, 336 Wis.2d 478, 799 N.W.2d 865; cf. State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 267–68, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). However, the circuit court must examine the facts, apply the correct legal standard, and reach a rational conclusion.

  5. State v. Hibbard

    2022 WI App. 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Approving the instruction

    The legal standards governing a vagueness challenge are well settled. We begin with the presumption that the statute is constitutional, State v. Barrett , 2020 WI App 13, ¶14, 391 Wis. 2d 283, 941 N.W.2d 866, and we review it with an eye towards preserving its constitutionality. SeeState v. Pittman, 174 Wis. 2d 255, 276, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). We will not invalidate a statute on vagueness grounds "if any reasonable and practical construction can be given its language or if its terms may be made reasonably certain by reference to other definable sources."

  6. Bell v. Wis. Dep't of Children & Families

    2015 WI App. 47 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The vagueness test has two prongs: (1) does the language sufficiently warn those trying to obey the law that their conduct violates the regulation; and (2) “whether those who must enforce and apply the law may do so without creating or applying their own standards.” See State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 276, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). ¶ 18 The regulation at issue here provides:

  7. Racine Cnty. Human Servs. Dep't v. Latasia D. M. (In re Termination Parental Rights to Saryah M. M.)

    859 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014)

    The constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 276, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). We reject Latasia's argument that § 48.415(6) is unconstitutionally vague.

  8. In re Termination Anthony H.

    No. 2010AP2497 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2011)

    The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review independently. State v. Pittman, 174 Wis. 2d 255, 276, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). We presume a statute is constitutional.

  9. State v. Chvala

    2004 WI App. 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Chvala, 271 Wis. 2d 115, ¶ 52, we construed this argument as follows: May a court interpret an internal legislative rule to determine criminal liability if, when applied to the facts of the specific case, the rule is not ambiguous?

    A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pittman, 174 Wis. 2d 255, 276, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). ¶ 10.

  10. County of Burnett v. Kaye

    Case Nos. 99-2660 and 99-2661 (Wis. Ct. App. May. 9, 2000)

    ¶ 5. The issues on appeal involve statutory interpretation, the application of undisputed facts to the law, and the constitutionality of the sanitary ordinance. These are all questions of law that this court reviews de novo. SeeCountyof Adams v. Romeo, 191 Wis.2d 379, 383, 528 N.W.2d 418 (1995); State v. Pittman, 174 Wis.2d 255, 276, 496 N.W.2d 74 (1993). 1. Construction of Dwelling Unit Without Permit