Bridges v. State

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1945 · Evidence

247 Wis. 350 (1945)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsaystate of mindcircumstantial evidenceidentificationother acts evidencelimiting instructionchild witness

Facts

A seven-year-old girl, Sharon Schunk, testified that a man in a soldier's uniform took her from a street corner, led her to a house, brought her to a second-floor room, and committed indecent liberties there. The central dispute at trial was identity: defendant denied seeing Sharon and presented an alibi that he and his wife were in their room at 125 East Johnson Street all afternoon. The state introduced evidence that Sharon, before the police discovered defendant's room, described features of the house and room that matched 125 East Johnson Street and the room defendant occupied, and she identified defendant both at a police show-up and in court. Another seven-year-old girl, Geraldine Shipley, also identified defendant as a soldier who accosted her in the same area earlier that afternoon.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant was the soldier who committed the offense, and whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony about Sharon's out-of-court statements and Geraldine Shipley's testimony for identification purposes. On rehearing, the court also addressed whether delayed arraignment after trial began required reversal.

Rule

A declarant's out-of-court statements are not inadmissible hearsay when offered only to show that the declarant then possessed knowledge or a particular state of mind, rather than to prove the truth of the facts asserted; the asserted facts themselves must be proved by other competent evidence. Evidence of conduct involving another person may be admitted for the limited purpose of identification when it tends to show the accused's presence in the relevant vicinity and bears on a witness's opportunity to observe and later identify the accused, even if the conduct incidentally reflects discredit on the accused. In noncapital cases, delayed arraignment and plea are waived by silence where the defendant is fully informed of the charge and suffers no prejudice.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Milwaukee, eight-year-old Nora Ellis reported that a man took her into an upstairs apartment. Before police found any suspect, Nora told Officer Lena Ortiz that the apartment had a green quilt, a tall lamp with beads hanging from it, and a cracked mirror by the door. At trial, the state also called the landlord, who independently testified that those items were in Caleb Morrow's apartment that week.

For what purpose is Officer Ortiz's testimony about Nora's earlier statements most properly admissible?

Explanation. The majority rule allows an out-of-court statement when it is offered not for the truth of the details asserted, but as circumstantial evidence that the declarant then possessed knowledge of those details. Here, Nora's statement is admissible to show prior knowledge of the apartment before police found it. The existence of the listed items cannot be established by her hearsay statement itself; those facts must be proved by other competent evidence, such as the landlord's testimony.