Background
Oscar Martinez was charged with stalking an adult woman and three teenage girls after he drove through a dead-end Ledgeview neighborhood on November 2, 2020, remained there without apparent legitimate business, and allegedly watched, followed, or approached them. A jury acquitted Martinez on two counts but convicted him of stalking the adult victim and one teenage victim.
Before trial, the State obtained permission to introduce five prior incidents involving Martinez. On appeal, Martinez challenged only evidence that he had been cited for lewd and lascivious behavior at the Kroc Center and convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior and disorderly conduct after incidents outside a Pure Barre studio. The stipulated evidence described public masturbation, lingering near women, and related police contact.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying Wisconsin’s three-part test for other-acts evidence, the court held that the circuit court properly admitted the challenged evidence for permissible non-character purposes: intent, motive, and knowledge.
The evidence was relevant because stalking required proof that Martinez intentionally engaged in a course of conduct directed at each victim and knew or should have known that at least one act would cause serious emotional distress. The prior incidents, considered with the other warnings and citations, supported inferences that Martinez acted intentionally, may have been motivated by sexual gratification, and had notice that conduct directed at women could be disturbing. Their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly because the facts were stipulated rather than developed through detailed testimony and the jury acquitted Martinez on two charges.
Key Takeaways
- Other-acts evidence may be admitted to show intent, motive, or knowledge rather than character.
- In a stalking case, prior incidents may be evaluated collectively as evidence of a similar pattern of conduct.
- A partial acquittal supported the conclusion that the challenged evidence did not improperly inflame the jury.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates Wisconsin courts’ broad discretion to admit prior conduct in stalking prosecutions when it helps establish the defendant’s purpose, motivation, or awareness of the distressing nature of the conduct. The court also stressed that prejudice under the evidentiary rule means improper influence, not merely evidence damaging to the defense.