State v. Iran Shuttlesworth
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2002 WI 3 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 99-2980-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Iran Shuttlesworth, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at: 241 Wis. 2d 573, 624 N.W.2d 421 (Ct. App. 2001-Unpublished) OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: November 9, 2001 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: Circuit Milwaukee Diane S. Sykes JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: January 18, 2002 ABRAHAMSON, C.J., and SYKES, J., did not participate. ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Mia Sefarbi and Law Offices of Steven M. Epstein, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mia Sefarbi. For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Diane M. Welsh, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 2002 WI 3 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 99-2980-CR (L.C. No. 96 CF 960542) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, FILED Plaintiff-Respondent, JAN 18, 2002 v. Iran Shuttlesworth, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed. ¶1 Shuttlesworth PER CURIAM. (Shuttlesworth) appeals affirming his both kidnapping and Petitioner from a judgment four of counts of court Iran of conviction appeals' on first-degree two decision, counts sexual of assault following a jury trial and an order denying his postconviction motion. We accepted review on the issue of whether the circuit court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding DNA match evidence without requiring supporting probability statistics. Shuttlesworth contends that state statute and governing case law require the State to submit probability statistics in support of DNA evidence, and because the State failed to provide the No. necessary statistical predicate, the DNA match 99-2980-CR evidence was inadmissible. ¶2 In particular, Shuttlesworth relies on Wis. Stat. § 972.11(5)(b)(1997-98), which provides: In any criminal action or proceeding, the evidence of a deoxyribonucleic acid profile is admissible to prove or disprove the identity of any person if the party seeking to introduce evidence of the profile complies with all of the following: . . . . 2. If the other party so requests at least 30 days before the date set for trial, or at any time if a date has not been set for trial, provides the other party within 15 days after receiving the request with all of the following: . . . . b. followed. The laboratory Shuttlesworth claims that provision failing to by protocols the State disclose and procedures violated at the this time of statutory trial the protocol and procedures that allowed its expert to conclude, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that Shuttlesworth was the source of the DNA sample at issue. ¶3 Wisconsin Stat. § 972.11(5) was repealed by 2001 Wis. Act 16, § 4003t, effective August 31, 2001. necessitates repealed, we an interpretation conclude that of the a Because this case statute appeal in that this is now case was improvidently granted, and dismissal is therefore appropriate. By the Court. The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 No. ¶4 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, SYKES, J., did not participate. 3 CHIEF JUSTICE and 99-2980-CR DIANE S. No. 1 99-2980-CR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
