State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11

In June 2016 Shane Stroik was accused of first-degree sexual assault of five‑year‑old “Amy”; a forensic interview (~1 month later) recorded Amy accusing Stroik and describing similar abuse by her deceased paternal grandfather.
Earlier (Feb. 2016) CPS investigated a report that Amy said a 9‑year‑old paternal cousin had touched her; Amy later told the CPS worker the cousin allegation was untrue and CPS closed the report as unsubstantiated.
At trial the prosecutor repeatedly argued Stroik had a "very high sex drive," and Amy’s mother (Laura) testified about frequent sex and pornography; trial counsel did not object to those questions/statements at trial.
Trial counsel also did not seek or introduce the CPS report concerning the cousin allegation, despite being aware a CPS investigation had occurred; the jury convicted Stroik of one count.
Postconviction Machner proceedings produced the CPS report (released under seal); the circuit court denied relief. On appeal the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Stroik's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor/witness statements that Stroik had a "high sex drive"	The evidence either was relevant to intent or was so plainly irrelevant/harmless that it could not have swayed the jury; counsel’s performance was not deficient	The "sex drive" remarks and testimony were inadmissible propensity/character evidence under §904.04 and counsel should have objected or sought a limiting instruction	The court held the "sex drive" evidence was inadmissible propensity evidence, but counsel’s failure to object was not deficient because counsel effectively rebutted the inference in closing argument; no relief on this ground
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain/introdce the CPS report documenting Amy’s prior allegation against her cousin (and recantation)	Argues the CPS report would not necessarily show a false allegation or be admissible; counsel’s choice was strategic	Counsel failed to investigate and seek a report that would likely have been admissible under the rape‑shield exception for prior untruthful allegations and would have undercut Amy’s credibility; failure was not a reasonable strategic decision	The court held counsel’s failure was deficient (unreasonable investigation); the CPS report evidence would have been admissible and there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome — conviction reversed and case remanded for new trial

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Ringer, 326 Wis. 2d 351 (Wis. 2010) (standard for admitting evidence of prior false allegations by complainant)
State v. Tabor, 191 Wis. 2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) (treatment of other‑acts evidence and greater latitude in child sexual‑assault cases)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (Wis. 1998) (three‑pronged test for admissibility of other‑acts evidence)
State v. Thiel, 264 Wis. 2d 571 (Wis. 2003) (counsel need not be perfect; deference to strategic decisions but duty to investigate reasonably)
State v. Plymesser, 172 Wis. 2d 583 (Ct. App. 1992) (other‑acts evidence inadmissible when sole inference is propensity)