State v. Peter Lawrence Handley

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.
July 17, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen 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. 2024AP1442-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2021CF259

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

PETER LAWRENCE HANDLEY,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waushara County:
GUY D. DUTCHER, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Blanchard, Graham, and Nashold, 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).
No. 2024AP1442-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Peter Handley was convicted of repeated sexual
assault of a child following a jury trial. On appeal, he argues that the circuit court
erred by admitting a videorecorded interview of the child victim pursuant to WIS.
STAT. § 908.08 (2023-24).1 Handley also argues that, even if the recorded
interview was properly admitted, the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support the conviction. We reject Handley’s arguments and affirm the judgment
of conviction.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The child victim, who we refer to as “Y.Z.,” was no older than five
years old at the time of the alleged assaults.2 Y.Z.’s biological parents were
separated at that time and living in different residences. Y.Z. primarily lived with
her mother and Handley, who was her mother’s boyfriend. Y.Z. would also
sometimes stay with her father, who lived with his girlfriend and her young son,
A.B.

¶3 The sexual assault allegations at issue here were initially reported to
child protective services by Y.Z.’s father, after he and his girlfriend observed what
they considered to be concerning sexual conduct between Y.Z. and A.B., who was
also five years old. Y.Z.’s father and his girlfriend told police that they confronted
Y.Z. and A.B. about this conduct, and Y.Z. told them that A.B. had placed his
penis in Y.Z.’s buttocks. When asked where they learned about that type of

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
2
To protect the privacy of the child victim, we refer to her and another witness using
initials that do not correspond to their real names, and we refer to her father, her father’s
girlfriend, and her mother using those designations. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86.

2
No. 2024AP1442-CR

conduct, Y.Z. said that she learned this conduct from her “other dad,” by which
she meant Handley.3

¶4 As part of the ensuing investigation, Y.Z.’s biological father took her
to the Safe Harbor Child Advocacy Center for a recorded forensic interview. Y.Z.
was five years old at the time, and the interview was conducted by a licensed
clinical social worker who had been trained in methods for conducting forensic
interviews of children. During the interview, which we summarize in detail
below, Y.Z. described various ways in which Handley had touched her with his
“wiener,” and she also talked about having “wiener parties” with A.B.

¶5 The State charged Handley with repeated sexual assault of the same
child, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 948.025(1)(d). As the jury trial approached, the
State filed a notice of its intent to introduce the recording of the Safe Harbor
interview at trial. See WIS. STAT. § 908.08(1) (providing an alternative procedure
that allows “audiovisual recording of an oral statement of a child who is available
to testify” to be admitted as evidence in certain circumstances); § 908.08(2)
(requiring a party that intends to offer the recording to file pretrial notice and the
court to hold a pretrial hearing on admissibility).

¶6 Handley objected to its admission, arguing that the recording did not
demonstrate that Y.Z. understood the importance of telling the truth or the
difference between true statements and lies. See WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(c) (if, as
of the time of the recording, “the child’s developmental level [was] inappropriate

3
The record shows that Y.Z. referred to two different individuals, Handley and her
biological father, as “dad.” Throughout this opinion, we attempt to clarify which of the two she
was referring to when we can discern that information from context.

3
No. 2024AP1442-CR

for the administration of an oath or affirmation in the usual form,” the court must
find, as a prerequisite to admissibility, that the child’s statement was made “upon
the child’s understanding that false statements are punishable and of the
importance of telling the truth”). Separately, Handley also argued that the
recording did not contain sufficient “indicia of trustworthiness, as required under
[§] 908.08(3)(d).”

¶7 The circuit court viewed the recording in preparation for the final
pretrial conference. The recording depicted an energetic child who had evident
difficulty maintaining her focus on the questions that she was being asked. Y.Z.
was physically active throughout the interview, and she frequently responded to
the interviewer’s questions with non sequiturs on seemingly unrelated topics, such
as asking the interviewer about various physical objects in the room. The
interviewer was nevertheless able to elicit relevant information from Y.Z. by
redirecting her attention, sometimes through repeated attempts at redirection.

¶8 Consistent with the requirements of WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(c), the
interviewer sought to confirm Y.Z.’s understanding that false statements are
punishable and of the importance of telling the truth. That portion of the exchange
went as follows:

Interviewer: So [Y.Z.], so how old are you?

Y.Z.: Um [holding up five fingers].

Interviewer: How many is that?

Y.Z.: [counting] One, two, three, four, five!

Interviewer: Five! So [Y.Z.] if I said you were eight,
would I be right or wrong?

Y.Z.: Right.

Interviewer: Would I be right? Are you eight?

4
No. 2024AP1442-CR

Y.Z.: Ah, no.

Interviewer: No, I would be wrong! So [Y.Z.] you tell me
if I get something wrong, okay?

Y.Z.: Okay.

Interviewer: Okay. And when we’re talking here, we’re
only going to tell the truth. [Y.Z.], do you know what it
means to tell the truth?

Y.Z.: Um, it’s, um, I don’t know what it is.

Interviewer: You don’t—okay, here, I’m going to give an
example. Let’s say there’s a boy and a girl sitting next to
each other eating lunch. And the boy takes the girl’s juice
box. And the girl says “Hey, did you just take my juice
box?” And the boy says “No, no I didn’t.” Is he telling the
truth or is he telling a lie?

Y.Z.: Him, him telling the truth.

Interviewer: He’s telling the truth? Okay. Um, let’s say
there’s another boy and another girl having lunch. And the
boy pulls the girl’s hair really hard. And the girl says “Did
you just pull my hair?” and he says “No, I didn’t do it.” Is
he telling the truth or is he telling a lie?

Y.Z.: Him telling a lie.

Interviewer: He’s telling a lie. Okay. Now let’s say there’s
another boy and another girl having lunch and the boy
steals the girl’s fruit snacks. And the girl says “Did you
just take my fruit snacks?” and he says “Yes” and he gives
them back. He’s like “Here you go I’m sorry.” Is he
telling the truth or is he telling a lie?

Y.Z.: Him telling the truth.

Interviewer: He’s telling the truth.

Y.Z.: And I like your necklace.

Interviewer: Oh, thank you. So, what happens if a kid is
telling lies and a grownup finds out?

Y.Z.: Is, them say, “Mom and dad, can you please, take my
fruit snacks?”

Interviewer: [Laughs] What—if somebody’s telling a lie,
and gets caught telling lies, what can happen?

5
No. 2024AP1442-CR

Y.Z.: I don’t know.

Interviewer: Does anybody get in trouble?

Y.Z.: Um, boys get in trouble!

Interviewer: Boys get in trouble. Is it a good thing to tell
lies?

Y.Z.: No.

Interviewer: No. Do you understand it’s really important to
tell the truth here [Y.Z.]?

Y.Z.: It’s really important --

Interviewer: --really important --

Y.Z.: --to tell the truth.

Interviewer: So, can you promise me to only tell me the
truth today?

Y.Z.: Okay.

Interviewer: Okay, thank you.

¶9 During much of the remainder of the interview, the interviewer
asked Y.Z. about Handley. At various points during the interview, Y.Z. described
things that Handley had done with his “wiener,” including placing it in her “butt,”
in her “hip” (pointing to her vaginal area), and in her “mouth.” Y.Z. also said
“dad do this to me” and made gestures that appeared to pantomime the act of
performing fellatio. Additionally, throughout the interview, Y.Z. repeatedly
turned the subject of conversation to physical objects in the room, and she
evidently wanted to talk about her activities with A.B. The interviewer answered
Y.Z.’s questions and listened to the information she provided about A.B., but
repeatedly redirected the conversation back to Handley.

¶10 At the pretrial hearing, Handley argued that, based on Y.Z.’s
answers to the interviewer’s questioning about truth and falsity, the circuit court

6
No. 2024AP1442-CR

could not find that Y.Z.’s statements were made “upon the child’s understanding
that false statements are punishable and of the importance of telling the truth.”
WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(c). Handley also renewed his argument that Y.Z.’s
recorded statements lacked indicia of reliability due to the “suggest[ive] nature of
the interview” § 908.08(d).

¶11 After hearing arguments from the parties, the circuit court
determined that the recorded interview was admissible. It acknowledged that
Handley’s arguments were “well-grounded,” and also acknowledged the
challenges that the interviewer faced in interviewing Y.Z., whose “attention [did]
not stay particularly focused for a very long period of time.” However, the court
determined, Y.Z. “articulate[d] pretty profoundly an understanding of the
difference between telling the truth and telling a lie,” and that “taken globally,”
she “demonstrated a sufficient understanding for the necessity of sharing truthful
information with the interviewer.” The court did not specifically address
Handley’s argument about the trustworthiness of Y.Z.’s recorded statements.

¶12 The case proceeded to a jury trial. The State presented testimony
from a number of individuals, including the forensic interviewer, and it played the
videorecording of the Safe Harbor interview for the jury. Y.Z., who was almost
seven years old by the time of trial, was called as a witness. She testified that she
was scared, and she appeared to be unable to answer some basic questions about
her family and living situation. She testified that she remembered a time when she
lived with her mom and “Peter [Handley],” who she identified at trial. When

7
No. 2024AP1442-CR

asked about what she would do when she “spent time with Peter,” Y.Z. testified:
“I forgot.”4

¶13 Handley moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case.
The circuit court denied the request.

¶14 During closing arguments, the State argued that the jury should
credit the statements that Y.Z. made in the recorded interview, which supported
three separate acts of sexual assault in the relevant time period, as required by
WIS. STAT. § 948.025. Handley argued that the jury should not credit Y.Z.’s
recorded statements. More specifically, he argued that, under the circumstances
and based on the evidence presented, the sexual assault allegations originated from
Y.Z.’s father and his girlfriend, and that Y.Z. would have felt pressure from her
father and his girlfriend to accuse Handley, as they expected her to do. Handley
also argued that the interviewer’s questioning was suggestive, and that it led to
allegations which, Handley argued, were false.

¶15 The jury found Handley guilty of the charged offense. Handley filed
this appeal, which is a direct appeal of the judgment of conviction.

DISCUSSION

¶16 On appeal, Handley argues that the circuit court erred in admitting
the recording of the Safe Harbor interview, and that the evidence presented at trial
was insufficient to support the conviction. The State concedes that the evidence

4
The State also presented testimony from Y.Z.’s father, his girlfriend, and other family
members, and from various government agents involved in the investigation.

8
No. 2024AP1442-CR

would be insufficient without Y.Z.’s recorded statements, but argues that the
recording was properly admitted at trial.

¶17 We begin with the admissibility of the recorded statements.
Generally speaking, we review evidentiary determinations by a circuit court under
the clearly erroneous standard of review. Here, however, Handley points to
Jimmie R.R., which sets forth the de novo standard of review for this particular
determination. See State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, ¶39, 232 Wis. 2d 138,
606 N.W.2d 196. Specifically, the Jimmie R.R. court stated that an appellate
court is “in as good a position” as a circuit court to evaluate whether a recorded
statement satisfies the criteria in WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(c).

¶18 The first question is whether the video satisfies WIS. STAT.
§ 908.08(3)(c). As noted, § 908.08(3)(c) provides that, “if the child’s
developmental level [at the time of the recording was] inappropriate for the
administration of an oath or affirmation in the usual form,” the child’s statement
must have been made “upon the child’s understanding that false statements are
punishable and of the importance of telling the truth.”

¶19 We conclude that WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(c) is satisfied here. The
exchange between the interviewer and Y.Z. on the topic of true and false
statements is not perfect, but it is adequate to serve as a prerequisite to
admissibility. Y.Z. said that she understood that it was not a good thing to tell lies
and that it is important to tell the truth, she understood that some children can get
in trouble for lying, and she promised to tell the truth. Moreover, the balance of
the interview shows that Y.Z. exhibited a willingness to say no to questions that
were posed to her, and to correct the interviewer when the interviewer said
something that she believed was incorrect. For example, when asked whether she

9
No. 2024AP1442-CR

changed her clothes that morning, Y.Z. said “No,” and then, when asked a follow-
up question, Y.Z., referring to her biological father, explained “My dad changed
me.” And when the interviewer asked “Did you drive here?” Y.Z. answered, “No,
my dad drived here.” See State v. Marks, 2022 WI App 20, ¶¶28-30, 402 Wis. 2d
285, 975 N.W.2d 238 (in making a determination under § 908.08(3)(c), we are to
review the recording as a whole, and not just the child’s response to certain
questions).

¶20 Handley takes issue with our conclusion about WIS. STAT.
§ 908.08(3)(c) for two reasons, but neither is persuasive.

¶21 Handley first points out that Y.Z. initially responded that she did not
know what it meant to tell the truth; that Y.Z. initially said the interviewer was
“right” when the interviewer said that Y.Z. was eight years old; and that she
answered the interviewer’s example about a boy stealing a girl’s juice box
incorrectly. Handley acknowledges that Y.Z. got the remaining examples right,
but points out that, in total, Y.Z. correctly answered just half of the examples the
interviewer gave.

¶22 Handley accurately quotes certain portions of the interview, but we
do not agree with his interpretation of what those portions show. See Marks, 402
Wis. 2d 285, ¶30 (“Whether a recording complies with WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(c)
does not involve a rigid determination as to whether the child correctly answered
every question.”). On our independent view of the interview, it appears that Y.Z.
began to respond correctly once she understood the hypothetical nature of the
interviewer’s examples, thereby demonstrating an age-appropriate understanding
of the difference between true statements and lies.

10
No. 2024AP1442-CR

¶23 Second, Handley argues that the interview does not show that Y.Z.
understood that she could be punished for making false statements. Handley
points out that it was always boys who were making false statements in the
interviewer’s examples, and that, when asked if “anybody get[s] in trouble” for
“telling lies,” Y.Z. responded that “boys get in trouble.” From this, Handley
argues that Y.Z.’s responses during the interview do not demonstrate that she
understood that girls like her could also get in trouble for making false statements.

¶24 Again, we do not agree with this interpretation of the exchange
between the interviewer and Y.Z. The interviewer’s line of questioning could
have been more exacting and she could have asked follow-up questions, but we
are not grading the quality of the questioning. When viewed in context, we are not
persuaded that Y.Z. was expressing an understanding that only boys get in trouble
for lying. Rather, we are persuaded that Y.Z. was relating the question about
whether “anybody get[s] in trouble” back to the interviewer’s examples, and was
correctly reporting that the boys who made false statements in those examples
would get in trouble. That, when coupled with Y.Z.’s agreement that it is “not a
good thing to tell lies,” that it is “really important” to “tell the truth,” and her
promise to do so, is sufficient. See Jimmie R.R., 232 Wis. 2d 138, ¶¶41-42 (“that
false statements are punishable” and “the importance of telling the truth” are
“interrelated” concepts, and “in most instances, a reasonable child would associate
a warning about the importance of telling the truth with the related concept of
untruthfulness and the consequences that might flow from such deceit”).

¶25 We now turn to WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(d) and consider whether the
“time, content, and circumstances of the [recorded] statement[s] provide indicia of
trustworthiness.” We conclude that they do. The interview took place shortly
after the assaults allegedly occurred, when Y.Z.’s memory would have been fresh.

11
No. 2024AP1442-CR

Y.Z. was interviewed by a licensed clinical social worker who had training on how
to interview children. She described the assaults using language that appeared to
be natural for a child of Y.Z.’s age and apparent cognitive ability, and she
illustrated what she meant with a gesture that appeared to evoke her personal
experience. Nothing that we see in the interview suggests on its face that she had
been coached to give any particular narrative. Y.Z. spoke fondly of Handley at
times, and nothing in her responses suggested that she had an ulterior motive to
falsely accuse him. For all these reasons, we conclude that Y.Z.’s recorded
statements contain the indicia of trustworthiness required by § 908.08(3)(d).

¶26 Handley argues that the trustworthiness of Y.Z.’s statements is
undermined by the interviewer’s questioning, which he characterizes as unduly
suggestive. He relies heavily on one point early on in the questioning, when the
interviewer indicated that Y.Z.’s biological father was physically present at the
facility. At that point in the interview, Y.Z. had not yet responded to open-ended
questioning by disclosing any sexual conduct by Handley, and the interviewer
asked: “What else did you tell your dad who’s here about your dad Peter
[Handley]?” Handley also points out that whenever Y.Z. turned the conversation
to A.B., the interviewer would attempt to refocus the conversation on Handley.

¶27 Under the circumstances, Handley argues, Y.Z. would have
understood the interviewer to be pressuring her to repeat the allegations against
Handley, whether or not they were true, because she would have understood that
that’s what her biological father expected her to say. He argues: “[Y.Z.] knew the
answer expected by [her father and his girlfriend], and was just told that her father
was there. They would not accept that [Y.Z.] learned this behavior with [A.B.]; it
must have been someone else. They would accept Peter Handley as that person,
and [Y.Z.] obliged.”

12
No. 2024AP1442-CR

¶28 We conclude that the interviewer’s approach does not undermine the
trustworthiness of Y.Z.’s statements to a degree that affects the admissibility of the
recording. As noted, some portions of the interview demonstrate that Y.Z. felt
comfortable answering “no” to questions that were asked, and to correcting the
interviewer when she suggested something that Y.Z. believed was incorrect. The
interviewer’s evident purpose in referring to Y.Z.’s “dad who’s here” was to
distinguish between the two men who Y.Z. referred to as her dad. And, although
the interviewer focused the questioning on Handley, who was the subject of the
investigation, she did not ask questions in a way that suggested a “right” answer.
Marks, 402 Wis. 2d 285, ¶33. Handley was free to cross-examine the interviewer
about her method of questioning, and he was also free to argue that Y.Z.’s
biological father pressured her into making false allegations, and indeed, this was
the strategy that he pursued at trial. However, under these circumstances, his
critique about the interviewer’s questioning does not undermine our confidence in
the trustworthiness of Y.Z.’s recorded statements so as to make the recording
inadmissible pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 908.08(3)(d).

¶29 Finally, Handley also makes the separate argument that, even if the
recording was properly admitted, the trial evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction. We review the sufficiency of evidence under a deferential standard,
and we uphold the jury’s verdict only if the evidence “is so insufficient in
probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact,
acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990).

¶30 Here, the only direct evidence of Handley’s guilt were the statements
Y.Z. made in the recorded interview, in which Y.Z. appears to describe at least
three different sexual assaults within the pertinent time frame. See WIS. STAT.

13
No. 2024AP1442-CR

§ 948.025(1)(d) (setting forth the elements of the charged offense). There was
nothing inherently incredible about Y.Z.’s statements, and the jury’s verdict was
always going to turn on its assessment of their credibility. It is true that a different
jury might have weighed the evidence differently, and might have, for example,
been persuaded by the defense argument that Y.Z. repeated false statements about
Handley during her interview based on pressure from her biological father and his
girlfriend. But our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is narrow, and we are
not to reweigh the evidence and come to our own conclusion. It was up to the jury
to decide whether to credit the statements that Y.Z. made during the interview, and
in the end, the jury evidently believed them. We conclude that the evidence was
sufficient to support the conviction.

¶31 For all these reasons, we reject Handley’s arguments and affirm the
judgment of conviction.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

14