State v. John D. Williams

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
November 10, 2021
To:
Hon. Jason A. Rossell
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Rebecca Matoska-Mentink
Clerk of Circuit Court
Kenosha County
Electronic Notice
Timothy M. Barber
Electronic Notice
Michael D. Graveley
Electronic Notice
Jeffrey W. Jensen
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP430-CR State of Wisconsin v. John D. Williams (L.C. #2017CF1247)
Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Reilly, 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).
John D. Williams appeals from a judgment convicting him of numerous crimes. He
contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting the recorded
statement of a child at trial. 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
(2019-20).1 We affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version.

No. 2020AP430-CR
2
In February 2017, an eleven-year-old girl named Donna2 disclosed to school officials that
her father, Williams, had sexually assaulted her. As a result of the disclosure, Donna was
forensically interviewed. The State subsequently charged Williams with numerous crimes,
including multiple counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, incest with a child, exposing
genitals to a child, and child enticement.
Before trial, the State moved to admit the audiovisual recording of Donna’s forensic
interview pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 908.08. The State argued that although Donna would be over
the age of twelve at the time of trial, the interests of justice warranted the recording’s admission.3
Williams objected to the motion. He “concede[d] that the Court [could] find that the
requirements of [§] 908.08(3)(b)-(e) [were] met.”4 However, he disputed that the interests of
justice warranted the recording’s admission.
2 We use the same pseudonym for the victim as the parties.
3 The interests of justice must warrant the recording’s admission when the child is over the age of
twelve but under the age of sixteen at the time of trial. See WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(a).
4 WISCONSIN STAT. § 908.08(3)(b)-(e) provide:
(b) That the recording is accurate and free from excision, alteration
and visual or audio distortion.
(c) That the child’s statement was made upon oath or affirmation or,
if the child’s developmental level is inappropriate for the administration
of an oath or affirmation in the usual form, upon the child’s
understanding that false statements are punishable and of the importance
of telling the truth.
(d) That the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide
indicia of its trustworthiness.
(e) That admission of the statement will not unfairly surprise any
party or deprive any party of a fair opportunity to meet allegations made
in the statement.

No. 2020AP430-CR
3
The circuit court held a hearing on the motion. It began by acknowledging that it had not
seen the recording. The court asked Williams’ counsel, “[D]o you believe that I need to watch
the whole thing before I can make the determination?” Counsel replied, “I don’t think that the –
that what’s on the video is particularly telling.” The State agreed with “counsel that the court
does not need to view” the recording to determine its admissibility.
Ultimately, the circuit court granted the State’s motion. In doing so, the court noted that
the only question before it was whether the interests of justice warranted the recording’s
admission. Upon review of the nonexhaustive factors listed in WIS. STAT. § 908.08(4),5 the court
5 WISCONSIN STAT. § 908.08(4) provides:
In determining whether the interests of justice warrant the admission of
an audiovisual recording of a statement of a child who is at least 12 years
of age but younger than 16 years of age, among the factors which the
court or hearing examiner may consider are any of the following:
(a) The child’s chronological age, level of development and capacity
to comprehend the significance of the events and to verbalize about
them.
(b) The child’s general physical and mental health.
(c) Whether the events about which the child’s statement is made
constituted criminal or antisocial conduct against the child or a person
with whom the child had a close emotional relationship and, if the
conduct constituted a battery or a sexual assault, its duration and the
extent of physical or emotional injury thereby caused.
(d) The child’s custodial situation and the attitude of other household
members to the events about which the child’s statement is made and to
the underlying proceeding.
(e) The child’s familial or emotional relationship to those involved in
the underlying proceeding.
(f) The child’s behavior at or reaction to previous interviews
concerning the events involved.
(continued)

No. 2020AP430-CR
4
concluded that it did. It cited the nature of the alleged conduct, the conduct’s duration, and the
close emotional relationship between Donna and Williams. It also found that admitting the
recording would likely reduce the duration of Donna’s testimony, which, in turn, would decrease
her stress.
At trial, Donna testified and the State played the recording of her forensic interview. The
jury found Williams guilty of sixteen crimes, including multiple counts of first-degree sexual
assault of a child, incest with a child, exposing genitals to a child, and child enticement. The
circuit court imposed a sentence of imprisonment totaling fifty-five years of initial confinement
and thirty-five years of extended supervision. This appeal follows.
On appeal, Williams contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in
admitting the recording of Donna’s forensic interview at trial. He complains that the court failed
(g) Whether the child blames himself or herself for the events
involved or has ever been told by any person not to disclose them;
whether the child’s prior reports to associates or authorities of the events
have been disbelieved or not acted upon; and the child’s subjective belief
regarding what consequences to himself or herself, or persons with
whom the child has a close emotional relationship, will ensue from
providing testimony.
(h) Whether the child manifests or has manifested symptoms
associated with posttraumatic stress disorder or other mental disorders,
including, without limitation, reexperiencing the events, fear of their
repetition, withdrawal, regression, guilt, anxiety, stress, nightmares,
enuresis, lack of self-esteem, mood changes, compulsive behaviors,
school problems, delinquent or antisocial behavior, phobias or changes in
interpersonal relationships.
(i) Whether admission of the recording would reduce the mental or
emotional strain of testifying or reduce the number of times the child will
be required to testify.

No. 2020AP430-CR
5
to watch the recording and make specific findings concerning the requirements of WIS. STAT.
§ 908.08(3)(b)-(e). He also disputes that the interests of justice warranted the recording’s
admission.
We are not persuaded by Williams’ arguments. To begin, he waived his first complaint
via his actions in the circuit court. As noted, Williams indicated that it was not necessary for the
court to watch the recording and conceded that it could find that the requirements of WIS. STAT.
§ 908.08(3)(b)-(e) were met. We will not allow Williams to pursue alleged errors that he himself
helped create. See State v. Hungerford, 54 Wis. 2d 744, 749, 196 N.W.2d 647 (1972) (“[T]he
defendant cannot now be heard to complain about a situation he himself brought about.”).
As for the interests of justice, whether they warranted the recording’s admission is a
discretionary decision. See State v. Tarantino, 157 Wis. 2d 199, 207, 458 N.W.2d 582 (Ct. App.
1990). Here, the circuit court examined the relevant facts known to it, applied the proper
standard of law, and reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. In particular, the
court cited the presence of several factors in WIS. STAT. § 908.08(4) to support the recording’s
admission. On this record, we perceive no erroneous exercise of discretion.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed, pursuant
to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.

No. 2020AP430-CR
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals