State v. Thomas D. Kulhanek

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 17, 2019
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2018AP1135-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2015CF664

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

THOMAS D. KULHANEK,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County:
MARC A. HAMMER, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Per curiam opinions 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).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Thomas Kulhanek appeals from a judgment of
conviction for exposing genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts to a child. Kulhanek
No. 2018AP1135-CR

argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when performing in
camera reviews of confidential State agency reports and records containing prior
allegations of sexual assault by the victim. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The State charged Kulhanek with numerous sexual crimes after a
minor girl made allegations against him. At the time of the charged acts,
Kulhanek was fifty years old and the victim was nine years old. As part of its
investigation, the Green Bay Police Department had referred the victim to a
forensic interviewer with Family Services. During the audiovisual-recorded
forensic interview at the Child Advocacy Center, the victim discussed Kulhanek’s
actions. At the conclusion of the interview, the victim was asked if she had ever
been assaulted before. The victim stated that she had been previously molested by
her stepbrother.

¶3 Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to use the audiovisual
recordings at trial, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 908.08(4) (2017-18),1 together with an
offer of proof. Kulhanek filed a response, requesting a hearing concerning the
admission of the audiovisual recordings “in relation to the criteria set forth in sec.
908.08, Stats., for admissibility.” Kulhanek also asked that the recordings “be
presented to the jury in whole and not edited in any way,” if the recordings were
deemed admissible. Kulhanek further requested that the victim be produced
immediately following the showing of the recordings to the jury for
cross-examination.

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise
noted.

2
No. 2018AP1135-CR

¶4 Kulhanek further moved the circuit court to conduct an in camera
review of any records or reports generated from the victim’s allegations against
her stepbrother. In his “Brief Supporting Motion For An In Camera Inspection of
Child Protection Services Records Of The Alleged Victim,” Kulhanek clarified
that “[t]he purpose of the inspection would be to determine if there is any evidence
of ‘prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault’ and be admissible as an exception
to Wisconsin’s rape shield law. Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3[.], Stats.”2

¶5 The circuit court conducted in camera reviews of four prior
allegations the victim had made against her stepbrother. The court denied
disclosure of the first three allegations on the grounds that a jury could not
reasonably find the victim made prior untruthful allegations. The court noted that
the victim never recanted her allegations and that her statements about the events
were not significantly contradictory. Regarding the fourth allegation, the court
found that a jury could reasonably find the child made a prior untruthful statement
of sexual assault. The court then considered whether the allegation was material
to a fact at issue in the case. The court found the allegation “completely different
in nature to the facts that exist in the pending case.” Finally, the court found the
highly inflammatory and prejudicial nature of the allegation outweighed any
probative value. Accordingly, the court concluded that the allegations were not
admissible.

2
Kulhanek also filed a motion in limine, which made two requests related to the victim’s
forensic interview. Kulhanek subsequently submitted a proposed order to the circuit court that
would direct the human services department or child protective services to “search its records and
to provide to defendant any records concerning the alleged prior sexual assault for the limited
purpose of determining if any records existed showing the information was untruthful and
potentially admissible at trial.” Kulhanek also requested an in camera review of the victim’s
confidential records. After the hearing, the court granted the motion for an in camera review.

3
No. 2018AP1135-CR

¶6 Kulhanek then renewed his request that the victim’s fourth allegation
against her stepbrother “be allowed to be used at the trial:”

[Defense counsel]: I just wanted to make a record that I am
renewing my request to have the evidence that the Court
reviewed, particularly the evidence concerning the – I think
the March 2005 incident, which the Court found to be –
found some indication of untruthfulness but determined
that it was not material or that it was unfairly prejudicial, I
renew my request that that evidence be allowed to be used
at the trial.

¶7 The circuit court denied Kulhanek’s request. At trial, the State
played an edited version of Family Services’ forensic interview, which omitted
reference to the victim’s prior allegations against her stepbrother.

¶8 The victim also testified at trial, describing incidents of Kulhanek’s
sexual touching, as well as three incidents of his “pants coming down.” Kulhanek
testified in his own defense, acknowledging a relationship with the victim but
denying any sexual assault. Kulhanek insinuated that the victim lied about the
incidents.

¶9 The jury found Kulhanek guilty of exposing genitals, pubic area, or
intimate parts. Kulhanek was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree sexual
assault of a child under thirteen, and one count of child enticement. Kulhanek
now appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶10 At the outset, we need to properly frame the issue on appeal.
Kulhanek insists that the circuit court erred by addressing the admissibility of
requested confidential documents instead of their materiality, such that the ruling
was “procedurally defective.” In doing so, he notes that his relevant motion in the

4
No. 2018AP1135-CR

circuit court cited, albeit only once, State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d
719 (Ct. App. 1993), and State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 356, 646
N.W.2d 298. Yet, as the State aptly notes—and as we explain more fully below—
the court conducted the precise analysis Kulhanek requested, which premised the
materiality of the documents to his defense on their admissibility under the prior
untruthful allegation exception to the rape shield law, as set forth in WIS. STAT.
§ 972.11(2)(b)3. He did not advance any different (or more general) argument for
disclosure under the principals of a Shiffra/Green analysis. While ultimately we
do not adopt the State’s request to deem Kulhanek’s appellate arguments as being
either forfeited or judicially estopped, our review of alleged circuit court error here
is cognizant of Kulhanek’s arguments made below, as opposed to what he now
purports to have argued.

¶11 The admissibility of evidence lies within the circuit court’s sound
discretion. State v. Pepin, 110 Wis. 2d 431, 435, 328 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App.
1982). A court also exercises its discretion when it determines that information
reviewed in camera should not be disclosed because it is not material to the
defense. See State v. Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372, 385-86, 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997).
Whether evidence is of sufficient probative value to outweigh its inflammatory
and prejudicial nature is also within the circuit court’s discretion. See State v.
DeSantis, 155 Wis. 2d 774, 792, 456 N.W.2d 600 (1990).

¶12 Chapter 48 of the Wisconsin Statutes, entitled the “Children’s
Code,” addresses a wide range of matters affecting children. Pursuant to WIS.
STAT. § 48.981(2), a required reporter must report suspected abuse or neglect if
there is “reasonable cause to suspect that a child seen by the reporter in the course
of professional duties has been abused or neglected,” or if there is reason to
believe the child has been threatened with abuse or neglect and that abuse or

5
No. 2018AP1135-CR

neglect of the child will occur. All juvenile records and reports made under the
statute and “maintained by an agency or other persons, officials and institutions
shall be confidential.” Sec. 48.981(7)(a). A “record” is statutorily defined as “any
document relating to the investigation, assessment and disposition of a report
under this section.” Sec. 48.981(1)(f). The statute provides a number of
exceptions to the confidentiality requirement, none of which allow for disclosure
to a defendant in a criminal case. Sec. 48.981(7)(a)1.-17.

¶13 Although the reports and records generated under WIS. STAT.
§ 48.981 are confidential, they may be disclosed to a defendant under certain
circumstances. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). In Ritchie, the
Court held that due process principles governed the State’s obligation to turn over
evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to
guilt or punishment. Id. at 57. Discussing the “materiality” requirement, the
Court stated, “[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that,
had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (citation omitted). Balancing the
defendant’s right to State-held exculpatory evidence against the State’s
“compelling interest in protecting child-abuse information,” the Court ruled that
the trial court must conduct an in camera review of the record to determine
whether it contained material evidence—i.e., evidence that “may have changed the
outcome of [the] trial had it been disclosed.” Id. at 59-61.

¶14 In the present case, Kulhanek asserted below that the child protective
services records pertaining to the investigations the county made into the
allegations against the victim’s stepbrother were potentially material to his defense
because they might show the victim made a prior untruthful allegation of sexual

6
No. 2018AP1135-CR

assault, which would be admissible at trial as an exception to the rape shield
statute. The rape shield law “generally prohibits the introduction of any evidence
of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct ‘regardless of the purpose.’” See State
v. Ringer, 2010 WI 69, ¶25, 326 Wis. 2d 351, 785 N.W.2d 448 (quoting WIS.
STAT. § 972.11(2)(c)). It demonstrates the legislature’s determination that
“evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct is largely irrelevant or, if
relevant, substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.” See State v. Carter,
2010 WI 40, ¶39, 324 Wis. 2d 640, 782 N.W.2d 695.

¶15 The rape shield law’s “broad evidentiary prohibition” is, however,
subject to three statutory exceptions, which encompass limited factual scenarios
where the legislature has determined that the evidence of the complainant’s sexual
history may be sufficiently probative of a material issue so as to overcome the
prejudicial nature of such evidence. Ringer, 326 Wis. 2d 351, ¶25. The three
statutory exceptions permit evidence of: (1) the complaining witness’s past
conduct with the defendant; (2) specific instances of sexual conduct showing the
source or origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, for use in determining the degree
of sexual assault or the extent of injury suffered; and (3) prior untruthful
allegations of sexual assault made by the complaining witness. WIS. STAT.
§ 972.11(2)(b)1-3.

¶16 Evidence of a victim’s alleged prior untruthful allegations of sexual
assault is admissible only if the circuit court makes three determinations: (1) the
proffered evidence fits within WIS. STAT. § 972.11(2)(b)3; (2) the evidence is
material to a fact at issue in the case; and (3) the evidence is of sufficient probative
value to outweigh its inflammatory and prejudicial nature. Ringer, 326 Wis. 2d
351, ¶27. Thus, “only after close judicial scrutiny,” may a defendant introduce at

7
No. 2018AP1135-CR

trial evidence of the complainant’s prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault.
Id., ¶26.

¶17 Here, the record reveals that Kulhanek made a specific request to the
circuit court when he asked for an in camera review: “Defendant is requesting an
in camera review of the alleged victim’s confidential records of allegations of a
prior sexual assault to determine if there is any evidence of that allegation being
untruthful and admissible as an exception to sec. 972.11(2)(b)3. Stats.” At
numerous points, Kulhanek confirmed that the confidential reports and records
relating to the victim’s allegations against her stepbrother were material to his
defense only if they were admissible under the prior untruthful allegations
exception to the rape shield law, sub. (3).

¶18 It is also apparent from the record that when granting Kulhanek’s
motion for an in camera review, the circuit court accepted Kulhanek’s stated
purpose for review. The court noted, “[Kulhanek] wants this material to determine
if there is any evidence or prior untruthful allegations of sexual assault that would
be admissible under 972.11(2)(b)3.” (Emphasis added.) The specificity of
Kulhanek’s request was further reflected in the court’s order granting the motion
for an in camera review: “That the purpose of the in camera review is to
determine if there is any evidence of a ‘prior untruthful allegation of sexual
assault’ as defined by case law, by [the victim], which could be admissible at trial
in this case under section 972.11(2)(b)3., Wis. Stats.” (Emphasis added.)

¶19 Kulhanek has developed an entirely new argument on appeal.
Kulhanek argues the question “is whether the records in question will be disclosed
to the defense, not whether they are admissible at trial.” Kulhanek contends the
circuit court erred procedurally by ruling

8
No. 2018AP1135-CR

on their admissibility rather than deciding whether the
documents were to be disclosed as material to the defense.
Admissibility of the evidence was never before the court,
and without first determining whether the documents were
material, an admissibility determination was improper.

Kulhanek claims he “brought a motion for in camera review under Shiffra/Green
and was seeking a disclosure of material documents. The court never ruled on
whether the sought after documents were material.”

¶20 To obtain an in camera review of protected information under
Shiffra/Green, a defendant must “set forth, in good faith, a specific factual basis
demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the records contain relevant
information necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence and is not merely
cumulative to other evidence available to the defendant.” Green, 253 Wis. 2d
356, ¶34. Information is “necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence if it
‘tends to create a reasonable doubt that might not otherwise exist.’” Id. If the
defendant meets that showing, the circuit court must then examine the records in
camera and determine “whether the records contain any relevant information that
is ‘material’ to the defense of the accused.” Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d at 386, citing
Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 58. If the court determines that the records contain material
information, then “that information should be disclosed to the defense if the
[subject of the records] consents to such disclosure.” Id., 211 Wis. 2d at 386-87.
If, however, the court “determines that the records do not contain relevant
information material to the defense, the circuit court must not disclose the records
or any information therefrom to the defendant.” Id. at 387.

¶21 Kulhanek now suggests that there was at least a reasonable
probability that had the records been disclosed pursuant to his request, the
outcome of the trial would have been different. He contends on appeal that the

9
No. 2018AP1135-CR

reports and records might be material to his defense because they showed that
(1) the victim’s family was a “high-conflict family,” and (2) the victim’s mother
and stepbrother had some “significant mental-health treatment issues,” and the
jury thus would have been less likely to find the present allegations against
Kulhanek credible.

¶22 But Kulhanek did not move for an in camera review of the reports
and records on these grounds in the circuit court.3 Indeed, the court conducted the
review just as Kulhanek requested—and answered the only question presented to
it—namely, whether the victim’s prior allegations were admissible under the prior
untruthful allegation exception to the rape shield statute. The court’s discretionary
decision to exclude the evidence was supported by the relevant law and the
applicable facts. The court correctly concluded that a jury acting reasonably could
not find the first three allegations were untruthful. As the court noted, the victim
never recanted and her statements about those events were not significantly
contradictory. See Ringer, 326 Wis. 2d 351, ¶37.

3
Kulhanek also vaguely asserts that had “the jury been provided with evidence that [the
victim] made a prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault they would have been less likely to
find the present allegations against Mr. Kulhanek credible.” But the jury would not have been
provided with that evidence because the circuit court concluded that it was inadmissible under the
rape shield statute. Significantly, Kulhanek does not appear to challenge on appeal the court’s
ruling of inadmissibility under the rape shield statute.

Furthermore, it is the defendant’s burden to reasonably investigate information related to
the victim before setting forth an offer of proof and to clearly articulate how the information
sought corresponds to his or her theory of defense. See Green, 253 Wis. 2d 356, ¶35. Because
Kulhanek did not move for disclosure below based on the materiality of the information in the
records that he now claims, such as the victim’s “high-conflict family” or the “significant
mental-health treatment issues” of the victim’s mother and stepbrother, he failed to demonstrate
that he exhausted all other options for obtaining that information.

10
No. 2018AP1135-CR

¶23 The circuit court acknowledged that a jury could find the fourth
allegation untruthful, so it then went on to discuss the second determination under
Ringer—i.e., whether the allegations were material to a fact at issue. Id., ¶27.
The court was satisfied the evidence of that event was not material to a fact at
issue in the case. The court stated that a jury acting reasonably would find the
evidence “simply unbelievable based on the children’s age, based on its
remoteness in time, based on the fact that it would be extremely difficult to prove
or disprove these events.” Independently, the court also found the events
described in the fourth allegation “so different in nature, in history, in background,
and in context from the allegations contained here that I’m not certain it’s
reasonable or that a jury would find these events to be material to an issue of fact
in this case.” See DeSantis, 155 Wis. 2d at 791 (“The fact that the prior incident
was remote in time and dissimilar in circumstances further diminishes the value of
comparing the two incidents and drawing conclusions regarding the complainant’s
credibility or her consent.”).

¶24 Finally, the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by
determining under the third Ringer requirement that the prior allegations were not
probative enough to outweigh the “highly inflammatory” and “prejudicial” nature
of the information. Because the victim’s prior allegations did not meet the
three-part test for admissibility, the court properly exercised its discretion by
ruling them inadmissible.

¶25 Kulhanek had the opportunity at the end of the in camera review
hearing to tell the circuit court it had performed the wrong analysis, if he believed
the court erred by ruling on admissibility at trial without first determining whether
the documents should be disclosed to the defense. Instead, Kulhanek
“renew[ed his] request” that the “evidence be allowed to be used at the trial” under

11
No. 2018AP1135-CR

the exception to the rape shield statute for a prior untruthful allegation. Kulhanek
will not now be heard to take issue with the court performing the review he
requested below—and ruling on the only issue presented to the court—i.e., the
admissibility of the evidence under the prior untruthful allegation exception to the
rape shield statute.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5.

12