State v. Colton C. Schneider, 2023AP001377-CR

Colton Schneider was convicted after a jury trial of third-degree sexual assault, as a repeater, stemming from an incident in July 2020 involving "Sally," who alleged lack of consent.
The prosecution introduced and emphasized evidence and argument at trial that Sally was a virgin, including through witness testimony and closing arguments.
The Wisconsin rape shield law, Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2), generally prohibits evidence concerning a complainant's prior (including lack of) sexual conduct.
Schneider’s defense counsel did not object to the introduction or use of this evidence at trial.
After conviction, Schneider moved for a new trial on the grounds of plain error, ineffective assistance, and the interest of justice, which the trial court denied, finding the evidence did not affect the verdict.
Schneider appealed, arguing the case turned on credibility and the evidence of Sally’s virginity was both barred and prejudicial.

Issue	Schneider's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was evidence of Sally’s virginity barred by the rape shield law?	Yes; evidence and argument about the complainant being a virgin or not ready for sex are prohibited by law.	Initially argued exceptions applied, later conceded on appeal the evidence was barred, but disputed some testimony’s scope.	Yes; evidence about Sally’s virginity was barred and its introduction was erroneous.
Was the admission of this evidence a plain error warranting reversal?	Yes; introduced multiple times, was central to the State’s credibility argument, and substantially prejudiced the defense.	No; errors were infrequent, the case was strong without it, and would not have affected the outcome.	Yes; prejudicial error permeated a close, credibility-based case, so conviction reversed.
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	No; the jury may have been improperly influenced given the case's close nature.	Yes; strength of corroborating evidence and victim credibility made the error harmless.	No; error was not harmless—had potential to tip the scales in this close case.
Did the trial court properly deny Schneider a new trial?	No; violated fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process.	Yes; no prejudice because conviction would stand regardless.	No; right to fair trial was undermined by improper admission.

State v. Mulhern, 402 Wis. 2d 64 (Wis. 2022) (rape shield statute’s prohibition on lack of sexual conduct evidence includes evidence of virginity)
State v. Bell, 380 Wis. 2d 616 (Wis. 2018) (rape shield statute bars both direct and indirect references to complainant’s lack of sexual activity)
State v. Gavigan, 111 Wis. 2d 150 (Wis. 1983) (rape shield law includes lack of sexual activity in "prior sexual conduct" prohibited evidence)
State v. Carter, 324 Wis. 2d 640 (Wis. 2010) (purpose and scope of the rape shield law)
State v. Jorgensen, 310 Wis. 2d 138 (Wis. 2008) (plain error doctrine and harmless error analysis)
State v. Mayo, 301 Wis. 2d 642 (Wis. 2007) (standard for harmless error review)