State v. Daniel A. Griffin, 933 N.W.2d 681

In July 2015 fourteen‑month‑old MHP died and his twin MDP sustained serious injuries; autopsy showed lacerated liver, broken ribs, other internal injuries, and elevated BACs for both infants. Defendant Daniel Griffin was charged with first‑degree reckless homicide (MHP) and two counts of child abuse causing great bodily harm (MDP and MHP).
The State sought to exclude evidence that the twins’ mother or another roommate committed the abuse (a Denny third‑party perpetrator claim). Griffin sought to admit: the mother’s alleged admissions she stepped on the twins; a forensic interview of a child witness C.J. describing the mother’s physical discipline; and other statements by the mother.
The State moved to admit three cell‑phone videos from Griffin’s phone as other‑acts evidence under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2); the videos show Griffin shouting near sleeping twins two days before the fatality.
The circuit court denied Griffin’s Denny motion, finding the mother lacked a sufficient direct connection to the charged crimes (although motive and opportunity were satisfied). The court admitted two videos for limited purposes (intent, motive, plan, and context) with a limiting instruction.
After a five‑day jury trial, Griffin was convicted on all counts. On appeal he challenged both evidentiary rulings; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Griffin)	Held
Admissibility of third‑party (Denny) evidence that the mother committed the crimes	Exclude the evidence because the mother lacks a direct connection to the crimes; proffered statements are unreliable or do not show she actually committed the offenses	Admit the mother’s admissions and C.J.’s statements as showing motive, opportunity, and a direct connection (mother stepped on the twins and previously physically disciplined them)	Affirmed exclusion: court found motive/opportunity met but no direct connection; mother denied stepping on the twins and C.J.’s statements were unreliable and would not support Denny evidence
Admissibility of other‑acts video evidence from defendant’s phone	Admit videos as relevant to intent, motive, plan, and context; contemporaneous and probative of defendant’s relationship and state of mind toward the children	Exclude videos as improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial	Affirmed admission: videos admissible under § 904.04(2) and Sullivan test (permissible purpose, relevance, probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice); limiting instruction reduced prejudice

State v. Denny, 120 Wis. 2d 614, 357 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. Ct. App.) (establishes "legitimate tendency" test requiring motive, opportunity, and direct connection for third‑party perpetrator evidence)
State v. Wilson, 362 Wis. 2d 193, 864 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. 2015) (affirms Denny test as constitutionally proper and explains direct‑connection requirement)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (Wis. 1998) (framework for admitting other‑acts evidence: permissible purpose, relevance, and balancing unfair prejudice)
State v. Payano, 320 Wis. 2d 348, 768 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 2009) (discusses context/background as a permissible purpose and risks of unfair prejudice when other acts closely resemble charged conduct)
State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 590 N.W.2d 918 (Wis. 1999) (definition of intent and relevance of other‑acts evidence to mental state)