State v. Johnny Ray Martin, 2023AP603, 5/28/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Martin’s claims that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying his attempt to impeach the alleged victim with her prior recantation of a separate incident, and that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate the recantation, prepare to address the recantation at trial, and argue the issue under the correct legal theory.
The State charged Martin with misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct, alleging that he had physically assaulted “Laura” in 2013. The case proceeded to a jury trial in 2022. (¶2). During trial, defense counsel moved the for “permission to ask Laura ‘whether or not’ Laura had ‘filed any false police reports in the past’ pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.04(1)(b).” Counsel argued that Martin had told her Laura had made a report to law enforcement prior to the allegations in this case, recanted, and been charged with obstruction. (¶3). Neither party had any record of this. The state objected, and the circuit court denied counsel’s request.
The circuit court had discovered a 2010 obstruction charge against Laura, but determined that it was “not contemporaneous,” the record was lacking information about the underlying facts, and the criminal charge was amended to an ordinance violation. Regardless, the court left the door open for Martin if he found more information. (¶4). The court then found the complaint, but it merely detailed Laura’s recantation. (¶5).
The circuit court again denied Martin’s motion, stating that the 2010 charge is “really other acts” evidence, “is not per se character evidence” because “[t]here’s no indication of recanting in this case,” it occurred three years prior to the allegations in this case, and the evidence was a “surprise” to the state. (¶7).
In postconviction proceedings, and on appeal, Martin argued the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying the motion, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and properly argue the motion–specifically, as admissible under Wis. Stat. §§ 904.04(1)(c) and 906.08(2). (¶¶8-11). COA considers various elements under §§ 904.04(1)(c) and 906.08(2), and concludes the court reasonably denied any inquiry into the incident given the remoteness of the 2010 charge against Laura. (¶¶15-20).
As to ineffective assistance, COA determines that there is no prejudice, as the extrinsic evidence itself–had counsel found it–would not have been admissible, and the circuit court denied the motion due to the remoteness in time of the recantation incident. Even with additional information, the remoteness would not have changed, and the impeachment inquiry would have still be inadmissible. (¶23).
