State v. Amanda B. Lipski

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
April 15, 2026
To:
Hon. J. Arthur Melvin III
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Monica Paz
Clerk of Circuit Court
Waukesha County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Dennis M. Melowski
Electronic Notice
Michael C. Sanders
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP2442-CR State of Wisconsin v. Amanda B. Lipski (L.C. #2023CF323)
Before Neubauer, P.J., Gundrum, and Grogan, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Amanda B. Lipski appeals a judgment of conviction, entered following a jury trial, for
felony bail jumping. On appeal, Lipski argues the circuit court erred by permitting the jury to
learn she had been charged with a felony and by excluding evidence that she had been acquitted
of that felony. Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that
this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).1 We
affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2024AP2442-CR
2
In a separate case, the State charged Lipski with operating while intoxicated as a fifth
offense, which is a felony. In that case, she was released on bond with conditions including that
she not “use or possess any alcohol.” On February 27, 2023, while Lipski remained on bond,
police stopped Lipski for speeding and saw a six-pack of beer on her front seat. The State
charged Lipski with felony bail jumping.
Before trial on the felony bail-jumping charge, the State and Lipski entered into a
stipulation that provided:
1. On the date of this offense, February 27, 2023, the Defendant
was charged with a felony offense … and that case was
pending.
2. In that case, the Defendant was released from custody on bond
on January 22, 2021, and the bond was still in effect on
February 27, 2023.
Based on the stipulation, Lipski moved to exclude evidence from her jury trial that she
was charged with a felony. She argued that since she stipulated that she was charged with a
felony, evidence proving that she was charged with a felony—including the stipulation—should
be excluded from trial. The circuit court denied Lipski’s motion reasoning that even with the
stipulation, the State was required to prove at trial that Lipski was charged with a felony because
it was one of the elements of the crime. Ultimately, the stipulation was admitted into evidence at
trial.
Separately, the State moved to prohibit Lipski from introducing evidence at trial that she
was later acquitted of the operating-while-intoxicated charge underlying her felony bail-jumping
charge. Following argument, the circuit court granted the State’s motion and concluded that the

No. 2024AP2442-CR
3
evidence of the acquittal was not relevant. The evidence was not admitted at trial. The jury
convicted Lipski of felony bail jumping.
On appeal, Lipski argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by
admitting evidence that she had been charged with a felony and excluding evidence that she was
acquitted of the underlying felony charge. We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or
exclude evidence under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard. State v. Dorsey, 2018 WI
10, ¶24, 379 Wis. 2d 386, 906 N.W.2d 158. “A circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion
if it applies an improper legal standard or makes a decision not reasonably supported by the facts
of record.” Id. (citation omitted).
To put Lipski’s arguments into context, we first observe that felony bail jumping has
three elements: (1) “The defendant was … charged with … a felony”; (2) “The defendant was
released from custody on bond”; and (3) “The defendant intentionally failed to comply with the
terms of the bond.” WIS JI—CRIMINAL 1795 (2018); see also WIS. STAT. § 946.49(1)(b). “The
state bears the burden of proving each essential element of the crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990).
Lipski first argues that because she stipulated that she had been charged with a felony, it
was improper for the jury to be informed that she had been charged with a felony. We disagree.
The fact that Lipski stipulated that she had been charged with a felony does not absolve the State
from having to prove that element to the jury. “A stipulation to an agreed fact is evidence, and
its admissibility is governed by the statutory rules of evidence.” State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6,
¶49, 315 Wis. 2d 253, 759 N.W.2d 557. A stipulation is not a waiver of the right to have a jury
determine each element of the charged crime; rather, a waiver “is governed by separate statutory

No. 2024AP2442-CR
4
and constitutional rules” and must be agreed upon by the defendant, the State, and the court. Id.,
¶¶49, 58-60; see WIS. STAT. § 972.02(1). A defendant cannot “waive a jury trial on [an] element
without the consent of the State.” Warbelton, 315 Wis. 2d 253, ¶60.
Here, Lipski’s stipulation simply prevented the State from introducing further prejudicial
evidence such as the nature of the underlying felony charge. See id., ¶53 (“When the defendant
agrees to a sanitized stipulation admitting the prior conviction, there is no need for further proof
relating to the nature of the conviction.”); see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 174
(1997) (holding that when evidence of a prior conviction is necessary solely to prove the element
of a prior conviction, it is an abuse of discretion to reject a defendant’s offer to concede the prior
conviction and instead admit the full and specific details of the prior felony conviction). The
circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by allowing the State to present the
stipulation that Lipski had been charged with a felony, and the case was pending at the time of
her conduct in this case. See Dorsey, 379 Wis. 2d 386, ¶24.
Lipski next argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by
prohibiting her from introducing evidence that she had been acquitted of the felony underlying
the bail-jumping charge. We again disagree. At trial, only relevant evidence is admissible. WIS.
STAT. § 904.02. “Evidence is relevant when it indicates that a fact in controversy did or did not
exist because the conclusion in question may be logically inferred from the evidence.” Rogers v.
State, 93 Wis. 2d 682, 688, 287 N.W.2d 774 (1980). Relevant evidence may be inadmissible “if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence.” WIS. STAT. § 904.03.

No. 2024AP2442-CR
5
Here, the circuit court excluded evidence regarding her acquittal on the basis that it was
not relevant to the charge in this case. The court appropriately exercised its discretion in making
that determination. See Dorsey, 379 Wis. 2d 386, ¶24. Any evidence that Lipski was ultimately
acquitted of the underlying felony charge has no relevance as to whether she was charged with a
felony, whether she was released from custody on bond, or whether she intentionally failed to
comply with the terms of bond. See WIS. STAT. § 946.49(1)(b); WIS JI—CRIMINAL 1795 (2018).
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals