State v. Morales-Pedrosa, 879 N.W.2d 772

Background

Defendant Esequiel Morales-Pedrosa was convicted on 14 counts for sexually assaulting his daughter B.M. when she was 13–15; convictions followed a jury trial and a postconviction Machner hearing denying a new trial.
State witnesses relevant on appeal: victim B.M.; her mother (also defendant’s wife); school liaison (Vargas); CPS investigator (Ortiz); Police Officer Hamilton and Detective May; forensic interviewer/expert Julie McGuire. Defense presented no witnesses.
B.M. testified first, detailed the assaults, recanted in a 2012 letter but later reconfirmed her original allegations; defense cross‑examined B.M. and other witnesses about prior statements and inconsistencies.
On redirect, expert McGuire (who never interviewed B.M.) agreed with the prosecutor that “approximately 90 percent of reported cases are true.” No contemporaneous objection to that exact question was made.
The mother testified she met defendant as a young teenager and they had five children; prosecution referenced ages in closing argument. Defense did not obtain a sustaining objection at trial to this testimony/argument.
After trial, defendant argued ineffective assistance (failure to object to McGuire’s testimony and "other‑acts" evidence) and a Confrontation Clause violation (other witnesses repeated B.M.’s prior statements after she was excused). Court affirmed conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Morales‑Pedrosa)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony that ~90% of reported abuse cases are true	McGuire’s statistical statement impermissibly vouched for B.M.’s credibility; counsel should have objected	Wisconsin law was unclear whether such general statistical testimony is impermissible vouching; McGuire never examined B.M. and did not give a particularized credibility opinion	Counsel not ineffective—no deficient performance because precedent was unclear and testimony differed from classic vouching cases
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to "other acts" evidence showing defendant had an early sexual relationship with victim’s mother (same age as victim)	Evidence and prosecutor’s argument implied propensity and was irrelevant; counsel should have objected under Wis. Stat. §904.04	Testimony as asked only established mother’s age when she “met” defendant and children’s ages; facts showed dissimilarity to this case (consensual teen relationship vs. adult father–daughter abuse)	No prejudice shown; even if objectionable, unlikely jurors were swayed; counsel’s failure not prejudicial
Confrontation Clause violated when Vargas, Ortiz, Hamilton, May testified about B.M.’s prior statements after B.M. was excused	Repeating B.M.’s out‑of‑court statements after she was excused denied defendant opportunity to cross‑examine about those statements	B.M. testified at trial and was cross‑examined; record does not show she was unavailable for recall and State even sought to recall her; defendant had full and fair cross‑examination of B.M. and the other witnesses	No Confrontation Clause violation; Nelis controls—appearance and cross‑examination at trial satisfied confrontation rights

Key Cases Cited

State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92 (Ct. App. 1984) (expert may not give opinion that another competent witness is telling the truth)
State v. Kleser, 328 Wis. 2d 42 (2010) (expert testimony impermissibly suggested she believed defendant’s account and narrated events beyond her knowledge)
State v. Nelis, 300 Wis. 2d 415 (2007) (Confrontation Clause not violated where declarant testified and was cross‑examined at trial and record does not show unavailability for recall)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)