State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams
Issue: Whether the prosecutor properly cross-examined an alibi witness as to what the defendant had told him about his prior offense.
¶21. Further, even if the 1992 conviction could have been properly admitted, using this evidence on cross-examination was improper. Other acts evidence is admitted for a specific purpose. Here, arguably, the evidence was admitted to show motive, intent, or plan. The evidence cannot be admitted or used to prove bad character or propensity to commit crimes. The cross-examination of Holmes regarding the 1992 conviction was clearly used to attack Meehan’s character-to show that he lied and concealed this information from his significant other. This was improper.