noting that in Wisconsin, "where substantially unlimited cross-examination is permitted, the underlying theory or principle on which admissibility is based can be attacked by cross-examination or by other types of impeachment"
How later courts described this case
- noting that in Wisconsin, "where substantially unlimited cross-examination is permitted, the underlying theory or principle on which admissibility is based can be attacked by cross-examination or by other types of impeachment"
- "[T]he underlying theory or principle on which admissibility is based can be attacked by cross-examination or by other types of impeachment."
- "In a state such as Wisconsin, where substantially unlimited cross-examination is permitted, the underlying theory or principle on which admissibility is based can be attacked by cross-examination or by other types of impeachment. Whether a scientific witness whose testimony is relevant is believed is a question of credibility for the finder of fact, but it clearly is admissible."
- discussing the admissibility of expert opinion testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). I concur in the holding of the court. On the basis of the evidence presented in this case, I too would affirm the circuit court’s order denying suppression of the test results. The defendant’s federal constitutional rights have not been violated. “The constitutional duty of the States to preserve evidence is limited to evidence that might be expected to play a role in the suspect’s defense.” California v. Trombetta, - U.S. -, - (Lexis slip opinion, p. 2) (June 11, 1984.) No argument has been made that the Wisconsin constitution requires the state to preserve evidence that cannot be expected to play a role in the suspect’s defense.
I do not join the dictum of the opinion relating to sec. 343.305(10) (d), Stats. 1981-82, which was adopted after this case arose. The legislature’s decision to codify the holding in the Booth case is not necessarily negated by this court’s decision in this case. The legislature may find merit in the position taken by the experts in the Booth case and by the defendant’s expert in this case. The legislature may adopt more rigorous safeguards governing the state’s preservation of breathalyzer ampoules than those imposed by the federal or state constitution. California v. Trombetta, - U.S. -, - (Lexis slip opinion, p. 9, note 12) (June 11, 1984).