District attorney describes long appellate fight over child‑victim testimony; Supreme Court review followed Hazeltine rule arguments

The Dunn County district attorney updated the Judicial and Law Committee about a child sexual‑assault case that progressed through postconviction review and the state appellate system to the Supreme Court.

The district attorney described the case as a difficult file in which the victim, who had a troubled family background and attempted suicide, gave a forensic interview that was played at trial because she was under age 12. At trial, one juror questioned how often children might falsely disclose abuse; an expert witness responded that false disclosures are "extremely rare," according to the district attorney. Defense attorneys later argued that the expert testimony ran afoul of case law restricting a witness from testifying that a specific person is telling the truth (the district attorney cited the "Hazeltine rule").

The DA said the matter involved effectiveness‑of‑counsel claims, public defender appointment and later private counsel on postconviction review, and multiple briefs and hearings in the court of appeals before reaching the state Supreme Court. The district attorney said he petitioned the attorney general's office to take the case to the appellate courts to preserve the conviction, and praised the AG's office and the appellate justices for their handling of oral arguments. "It was really interesting…I'm glad the I had to convince or petition the attorney general's office to take it to the to even try to have it go to the appellate court," the district attorney said.

The DA told committee members the case's procedural history included a jury trial admission of a forensic interview, a postconviction ineffective‑counsel hearing and years of appeals; he said the appellate review process and the Supreme Court oral argument were substantial and unusually prolonged. No committee action was taken on the case; the DA presented the update during staff reports.