Sufficiency of Evidence Expert Testimony.

Byline: Derek Hawkins

WI Court of Appeals District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Richard L. Pringle

Case No.: 2020AP6-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence Expert Testimony

Richard Pringle appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree sexual assault of a person who suffers from a mental illness or deficiency, contrary to WIS. STAT. 940.225(2)(c) (2017-18). Pringle also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pringle argues he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice because the real controversy was not fully tried during his jury trial. Specifically, he contends that the State's expert witness improperly vouched for the victim's credibility, contrary to State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984), and that the expert's testimony therefore clouded a crucial issue in the casenamely, the victim's credibility.

Although this is a close case, we ultimately conclude that Pringle is not entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. The State's expert witness testified, generally, that in her experience individuals with cognitive or developmental disabilities often lack the sophistication necessary to "feign a situation" or "concoct a story." The expert witness did not expressly testify, however...