Background
In May 2021, T.H. reported that Anderson sexually assaulted her at knifepoint, attempted strangulation with his hands and a pillow, and sent repeated threatening messages. Anderson was arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault with a dangerous weapon, stalking with a prior violent conviction (both with domestic abuse enhancers), and related offenses. However, on June 2, 2021, T.H. recanted her allegations, filing an affidavit claiming she had fabricated the report to hurt Anderson after learning he was married and getting divorced.
While in jail, Anderson made over 1,100 phone calls lasting approximately 15 minutes each, attempting to influence witnesses and the victim. He directed others to destroy evidence, including a phone and vehicle records, and had associates contact T.H. suggesting she could avoid trial by not appearing as the victim. These actions formed the basis for additional charges of felony witness intimidation and contempt of court for violating a protective order.
The State introduced prior acts evidence concerning a 1998 sexual assault by Anderson against a different victim, K.G., involving similar violent methods including forced oral sex, gagging, choking, and threatening language. A jury had acquitted Anderson of that 1998 assault, but the State sought to introduce it to show motive and intent in the current case.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed all convictions. On Anderson’s first argument, the court held that the circuit court properly admitted the 1998 prior acts evidence under Wisconsin’s “greater latitude rule,” which permits more liberal admission of similar acts in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Although 23 years separated the two assaults, the court found the time gap was not unreasonably remote because Anderson spent seven-plus years in prison or on supervision during that period. Critically, the significant factual similarities between the assaults—including forced oral sex, choking, pillow suffocation, gagging, and threats to kill—gave the prior acts evidence strong probative value in showing Anderson’s pattern of using power and control to achieve sexual gratification.
The court explained that the prior acts evidence was admissible to establish intent (an element of sexual assault), motive, and context—particularly important given T.H.’s recantation, as the pattern of prior abuse helped explain her initial fearful disclosure and her later recantation under psychological pressure. The court noted that Wisconsin law permits admission of acquitted conduct for such purposes, requiring only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury received a limiting instruction to consider the prior acts only on the issues of motive and intent, not to prove Anderson’s character or propensity.
On Anderson’s sufficiency-of-evidence challenge, the appellate court applied the standard requiring reversal only if evidence was “so lacking in probative value and force that no reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court found sufficient evidence in the recorded police interview, the threatening text and Facebook messages, and the witness intimidation conduct (the jail calls and through-third-party contacts), all tending to corroborate T.H.’s initial account despite her recantation.
Key Takeaways
- Prior sexual assault evidence is admissible under the greater latitude rule even when separated by decades, provided the crimes share significant factual similarities and the defendant had limited opportunity to reoffend due to incarceration.
- A victim’s recantation does not require acquittal; prior acts evidence showing a pattern of abuse and control can bolster the victim’s initial credibility and provide context for psychological pressure leading to recantation.
- Acquitted conduct can be introduced as other acts evidence for permissible purposes such as intent and motive; the jury need only believe the prior act occurred by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Post-arrest intimidation—such as jail calls directing associates to contact the victim and encouraging her not to testify—corroborates the original allegations and supports convictions for witness intimidation and contempt.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces prosecutors’ ability to pursue sexual assault and domestic violence convictions even when victims recant, provided sufficient corroborating evidence exists. The opinion validates the use of prior similar-act evidence to show the defendant’s pattern and motive, a particularly powerful tool when a recanting victim’s credibility is in question. By holding that acquitted conduct is admissible and that factual similarity can overcome temporal remoteness, Wisconsin’s courts have created meaningful pathways to prosecution in these cases.
The ruling also highlights the significance of jail-call monitoring and witness intimidation charges as independent proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt and attempt to obstruct justice. For defense practitioners, the decision clarifies that while greater latitude applies to prior acts in sexual assault cases, courts must still ensure the evidence is relevant, not unduly prejudicial, and subject to limiting instructions—a balance the court found the trial judge struck properly here. The case illustrates how domestic violence contexts often involve power dynamics and recantations that complicate prosecution, yet do not foreclose it with proper investigative and evidentiary work.