¶ 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.
"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."
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."
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.
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."
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:
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.
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.
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.
¶ 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