State v. Michael O. Statler, 2019AP000764-CR, 2019AP000765-CR, 2019AP000766-CR

Michael Statler was charged in three complaints with eight counts of armed robbery; the cases were consolidated for trial.
Anthony Lowery, charged in a separate case for two of the same robberies, agreed to plead in exchange for the State recommending one year in county jail as a condition of ten years' probation, conditioned on his truthful testimony against Statler.
The State asked the court to take judicial notice of Wisconsin sentencing procedures after probation revocation so it could argue to the jury that Lowery faced potentially greater penalties if his probation were revoked; Statler objected.
The circuit court took judicial notice and instructed the jury that sentencing is discretionary and that, if probation is revoked, the court could impose up to the statutory maximum or impose a withheld sentence.
The jury convicted Statler on all counts; on appeal he argued the judicial-notice instruction was erroneous and prejudicial because it (1) purportedly ran afoul of Wis. Stat. § 902.01 and (2) included facts not shown to be within Lowery’s knowledge and thus irrelevant to credibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in giving a judicial-notice instruction about sentencing after probation revocation and thereby prejudiced Statler	The State argued the sentencing procedures are legislative facts (statutory, not adjudicative) properly judicially noticed and relevant to assess Lowery’s credibility	Statler argued the instruction improperly relied on Wis. Stat. § 902.01 (adjudicative-facts rule) and that the final-sentence language was irrelevant because there was no evidence Lowery knew about the maximum-penalty consequence	Affirmed: court held the facts were legislative (not governed by § 902.01), judicial notice of them was appropriate under common law, and the instruction was relevant because the jury could infer Lowery’s knowledge and weigh his credibility accordingly.

State v. Meehan, 244 Wis. 2d 121 (Ct. App. 2001) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: discretionary review)
Sisson v. Hansen Storage Co., 313 Wis. 2d 411 (Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes adjudicative facts governed by Wis. Stat. § 902.01)
State v. Harvey, 242 Wis. 2d 189 (Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishes legislative facts from adjudicative facts; legislative facts help juries understand legal questions)
State v. Maday, 374 Wis. 2d 164 (Wis. 2017) (jury decides witness credibility and may draw inferences)
State v. Marinez, 331 Wis. 2d 568 (Wis. 2011) (evidence bearing on credibility is relevant)
Westring v. James, 71 Wis. 2d 462 (Wis. 1976) (legislative facts assist jury understanding of law)