139 Wis. 2d 569 - State v. Penigar’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Vollmer v. Luety (1990), 155 Wis. 2d 633 - State v. Pulizzano (1990)
40 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess · 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss · 120 Wis. 2d 92 - State v. Haseltine · Scadden v. State · 84 Wis. 2d 166 - Virgil v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so clouded a crucial issue that it may be fairly said that the real controversy was not fully tried.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Sec. 972.11 (2)(b) If the defendant is accused of a crime under s. 940.225, any evidence concerning the complaining witness’s prior sexual conduct or opinions of the witness’s prior sexual conduct and reputation as to prior sexual conduct shall not be admitted into evidence during the course of the hearing or trial, nor shall any reference to such conduct be made in the presence of the jury, except the following, subject to s. 971.31(11): "1. Evidence of the complaining witness’s past conduct with the defendant. "2. Evidence of specific instances of sexual conduct showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy or disease, for use in determining the degree of sexual assault or the extent of the injury suffered. "3. Evidence of prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault made by the complaining witness. "(c) Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual conduct of the complaining witness in par. (b) applies regardless of the purpose of the admission or reference unless the admission is expressly permitted under par. (b) 1, 2, 3.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon reading the record we conclude that the case hinged on false and inadmissible testimony about the complainant’s lack of prior sexual experience. When consent is a determinative issue in a rape trial and the jury’s decision on consent turns on testimony about the complainant’s lack of prior sexual experience which is both false and inadmissible under the rape shield law, the jury is rendered unable to evaluate the testimony of the complainant and the defendant — whose credibility were the crucial aspects of the trial — because inadmissible, highly prejudicial and false evidence pervaded the course of the trial. Thus we conclude that the real controversy was not fully tried because ‘the circumstances of the trial prevented a fair trial of the factual issues of the case.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.