State v. Marinez, 2011 WI 12

Four-year-old victim M.M.L. described sexual abuse by Marinez in a videotaped forensic interview; she also referenced a separate hand-burning incident by Marinez.
Marinez had previously been convicted of intentional child abuse for the hand-burning incident and no contact with M.M.L. occurred after that incident.
The State sought to admit the videotaped interview under Wis. Stat. § 908.08 and the hand-burning references under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(a); the circuit court admitted the full video and the hand-burning references with limits.
The court applied the Sullivan three-prong framework and the greater latitude rule due to the child-victim context to admit the hand-burning references for identity, time, location, context, and credibility.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding improper admission of the hand-burning evidence; the State petitioned for review.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err, affirmed the admission under the Sullivan framework and greater latitude rule, and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the hand-burning reference admissible under 904.04(2)(a)?	hand-burning references provided identity, context, timing, and credibility	not properly admissible for those purposes, risk of prejudice, and not intertwined	Admissible under Sullivan and 904.04(2)(a)
Does the greater latitude rule apply to the Sullivan analysis in a child-sexual-abuse case?	greater latitude supports admission due to the victim's age and testimony difficulties	greater latitude does not justify improper purposes or prejudice	Yes; greater latitude applies to each Sullivan prong
Was the probative value not outweighed by unfair prejudice under Sullivan's third prong?	hand-burning evidence adds completeness, credibility, and context, aiding truth-finding	evidence is highly prejudicial and could mislead the jury	Probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice
Did prosecutorial conduct amount to prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal?	misconduct not established; limitations were respected	prosecutor exceeded limits and argued improper themes	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; weaknesses were remedied by rulings and instructions

State v. Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2003) (upholds admissibility of other-acts under Sullivan with greater latitude in child cases)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (Wis. 1998) (three-prong Sullivan test for 904.04(2)(a) admissibility)
State v. Hammer, 236 Wis. 2d 686 (Wis. 2000) (confirms greater latitude rule in child sexual abuse cases)
State v. Payano, 320 Wis. 2d 348 (Wis. 2009) (burden-shifting framework for Sullivan analysis)
State v. Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537 (Wis. 2000) (endorses greater latitude in child-sex cases; credibility/context considerations)
State v. Whitty, 34 Wis. 2d 278 (Wis. 1967) (classic cautionary considerations in admitting other-acts)