State of Wisconsin v. Petain Iaulualo

Stevens Point, Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with sexual assault.



Petain Isulualo was convicted of second-degree sexual assault, strangulation and suffocation, and false

imprisonment, as well as an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. In his postconviction motion, Iaulualo argued that he is entitled to a new trial on two grounds: (1) the introduction of evidence regarding the victim's sexual history and the prosecutor's reference to this evidence in closing arguments were plain error because they violated WIS. STAT. § 972.11(2)(b) (2021-22)[1] (the "rape shield" statute); and (2) Iaulualo's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of evidence about the victim's sexual history and the prosecutor's reference to this evidence. After a Machner hearing, the circuit court denied Iaulualo's motion.[2] The court concluded that any errors in admitting evidence regarding the victim's sexual history and reference to the evidence was harmless and that Iaulualo had not shown deficient performance on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.



* * *



Iaulualo filed a postconviction motion seeking a new trial, alleging that the admission of evidence about A.B.'s lack of prior anal intercourse and the prosecutor's reference to that testimony violated the rape shield statute as set forth in WIS. STAT. § 972.11(2)(b). According to Iaulualo, these errors entitle him to a new trial under the plain error doctrine. In the alternative, Iaulualo argued that trial counsel's failure to object to the improper testimony and the prosecutor's reference to the improper testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling him to a new trial.



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. RAPE SHIELD STATUTE. The case addresses whether the introduction of evidence regarding the victim's sexual history and the prosecutor's reference to such evidence violated the rape shield statute, thereby constituting plain error and impacting the defendant's right to a fair trial.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE. The court examines whether erroneously admitted evidence and prosecutorial references to the victim's sexual history were harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the offenses charged.



CRIMINAL LAW. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. The court considers whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of evidence and references regarding the victim's sexual history, and whether such failure prejudiced the defendant under the standard set by Strickland v. Washington.



Key Phrases Second-degree sexual assault. Ineffective assistance of counsel. Rape shield statute. Harmless error doctrine. Machner hearing.

Affirmed