State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 841 N.W.2d 791

Background

Curtis L. Jackson shot and killed Angelo McCaleb on November 4, 2008; Jackson immediately confessed at the scene and was charged with first‑degree intentional homicide while armed; jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of second‑degree reckless homicide while armed.
Jackson claimed self‑defense, testifying McCaleb acted threateningly and appeared armed; McCaleb was unarmed but intoxicated and aggressive that night.
Pretrial Jackson sought to admit three prior violent incidents involving McCaleb (specific‑acts) and also sought to offer reputation/opinion evidence that McCaleb had a violent reputation; the pretrial filings and argument focused primarily on the three specific acts and did not lay a clear foundation for reputation testimony.
The circuit court excluded the three specific prior acts (other‑acts and character grounds) and, when defense counsel briefly sought to admit reputation/opinion testimony, the court denied character evidence in its entirety without a detailed proffer; defense did not preserve a fuller proffer on reputation evidence.
On postconviction and appeal Jackson shifted focus to challenge exclusion of reputation evidence (arguing it could show McCaleb was the first aggressor); both the court of appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding exclusion proper and harmless error even if mistaken.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victim's prior specific violent acts (other‑acts / character)	Jackson argued the three prior acts showed McCaleb's violent character and rebutted prosecution's aggressor theory; relevant to motive/opportunity and self‑defense	State argued acts were irrelevant, prejudicial, too remote/different, and inadmissible to prove propensity	Excluded: circuit court did not err — acts were not shown to meet Sullivan other‑acts criteria and were inadmissible as character evidence because defendant lacked knowledge (McMorris) and character wasn’t an essential element under §904.05(2)
Admissibility of reputation/opinion testimony that victim had a reputation for violence	Jackson (on appeal) argued reputation evidence was admissible to show victim was likely first aggressor even though Jackson did not know the reputation	State argued reputation evidence requires a foundation and is inadmissible where defendant lacked knowledge; also contested foundation preservation	Excluded: court held Jackson failed to lay foundation or make proffer to preserve issue; even assuming error, exclusion was harmless given cumulative, strong trial evidence of victim's conduct
Whether specific‑act character evidence may be admitted when defendant lacked prior knowledge (McMorris issue)	Jackson suggested violent character evidence generally should be admissible to prove first aggressor regardless of defendant’s knowledge	State and courts maintained McMorris limits admissibility of specific acts to those known to defendant at time of incident	Held: McMorris remains controlling—specific prior acts admissible to show reasonableness of defendant’s fear only when defendant had knowledge of them
Harmlessness of excluding reputation evidence	Jackson argued exclusion prejudiced his self‑defense case and might have altered the verdict	State argued any reputation testimony would be cumulative and of modest probative value; strong eyewitness evidence already before jury	Held: Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reputation testimony would have been cumulative to abundant evidence of victim’s aggression that jury heard

Key Cases Cited

McMorris v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 144 (1973) (specific prior violent acts admissible to show reasonableness of defendant's fear only if defendant knew of them at time of incident)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (1998) (three‑step test for admissibility of other acts evidence: permissible purpose, relevance/probative value, and balancing under §904.03)
State v. Head, 255 Wis. 2d 194 (2002) (appellate review standards for circuit court evidentiary discretion and limits on McMorris evidence)
Werner v. State, 66 Wis. 2d 736 (1975) (discusses limits on using specific acts to prove victim was first aggressor; character evidence principles in homicide cases)
State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331 (1999) (harmless error framework; reversal requires reasonable probability that exclusion affected outcome)