State v. Eric J. Debrow, 992 N.W.2d 114

Eric Debrow was charged with sexual assault of a child (Mary) and later with a related charge involving another child; he faced a persistent-repeater enhancer based on a 2004 child sexual-assault conviction that the court had precluded from evidence.
The trial court granted Debrow's pretrial motion excluding evidence of the 2004 conviction as more prejudicial than probative.
During redirect, witness Isaac (Mary's brother) was asked why he was "on alert"; after interruptions the parties later agreed Isaac had said, "I looked on CCAP." The court immediately struck the testimony and instructed the jury to disregard anything beyond that he heard from his mother.
Debrow moved for a mistrial, arguing jurors would infer from "I looked on CCAP" that he had a prior sexual-assault conviction and that no curative instruction could undo that prejudice; the circuit court denied the mistrial.
The jury convicted Debrow of second-degree sexual assault of Mary and, following sentencing to life under the persistent-repeater statute, Debrow appealed; the court of appeals ordered a new trial, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Debrow)	Held
Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion by denying a mistrial after Isaac said "I looked on CCAP"	The isolated, interrupted comment may mean nothing to jurors; testimony was immediately stricken and a curative instruction given, so less drastic remedies sufficed	The CCAP reference would lead jurors to infer the 2004 sexual-assault conviction and irreparably prejudice the jury—mistrial required	Sup. Ct.: No erroneous exercise of discretion; denial of mistrial was proper and conviction affirmed
Whether the curative instruction adequately cured any prejudice from the CCAP remark	Stricken testimony plus standard instruction (Civil Jury Instr. 150) adequately addressed the comment	The standard instruction was insufficient to undo the prejudice from the CCAP reference	Majority: adequacy of the instruction was not squarely before the Court (Debrow did not pursue that issue); concurrence viewed the instruction in light of the whole trial and found it sufficient
Whether the remark constituted structural error requiring automatic reversal	Not structural; normal prejudice and discretion analysis applies	Debrow did not argue structural error; claimed prejudice only	Held: Not structural; review under ordinary discretionary/mistrial framework applies

State v. Ford, 306 Wis. 2d 1 (2007) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial; discretionary review)
State v. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535 (2004) (discretion entails a process of reasoning)
State v. Raye, 281 Wis. 2d 339 (2005) (erroneous exercise of discretion arises from legal error or failure to base decision on record facts)
State v. Moeck, 280 Wis. 2d 277 (2005) (importance of considering curative instructions and less drastic alternatives to mistrial)
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) (error-free trial not guaranteed; not all errors warrant mistrial)
Johnson v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 344 (1977) (court will not assume more specific prejudicial information beyond what the record shows)
Oseman v. State, 32 Wis. 2d 523 (1966) (assessing prejudice in light of the whole proceeding; high bar for mistrial)