WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AJR 16

Relating to: recognizing May 1 of each year as St. Joseph the Worker Day in Wisconsin and recognizing and appreciating the dignity of all working men and women in Wisconsin.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Elijah Behnke and 5 co-sponsors

Allows the state Supreme Court to adopt a rule admitting fresh complaint evidence from sexual assault or discrimination cases to aid credibility and corroboration.

Read and referred to Committee on Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AJR 16

Summary — AJR 16

Title: Permits evidence of prompt reports of sexual assault or employment discrimination be admissible as hearsay exception
Type: Joint Resolution (proposing new Rule of Evidence)
Status: Introduced in the Assembly; referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee (introduced June 19, 2025)
Related bill: SJR 32 (companion)

Purpose / Intent

AJR 16 would authorize the state Supreme Court to adopt a new evidentiary rule permitting admission of “fresh complaint” evidence — prompt out‑of‑court reports by victims of sexual assault or employment discrimination — either as a hearsay exception or as admissible prior statements bearing on credibility and corroboration. The resolution’s stated goals are to (1) rebut adverse inferences juries might draw when timely complaints are not presented, (2) corroborate allegations of sexual assault or employment discrimination, and (3) help explain investigative steps and complete the narrative leading to arrest.

Key provisions

  • Authorizes the Supreme Court (pursuant to the procedure in P.L.1960, c.52) to adopt a rule amending Rule 803 (Hearsay Exceptions Not Dependent on Declarant’s Unavailability) to recognize “fresh complaint” evidence.
  • Defines the evidentiary purpose of such statements as non‑truth purposes (e.g., bearing on the declarant’s credibility) and as corroborative — to rebut claims of recent fabrication or improper motive.
  • Signals that such prompt complaint statements would be admissible irrespective of the declarant’s availability, subject to the rule’s reliability safeguards (exact wording and safeguards to be determined by the Supreme Court).
  • Uses the expedited adoption procedure authorized by statute so the Court may adopt the rule by order without a Judicial Conference presentation after the resolution is delivered to and signed by the Governor.

Who would be affected

  • Victims of sexual assault and employees alleging discriminatory conduct (their prompt complaints could be used in court proceedings).
  • Criminal defendants and civil defendants in employment discrimination cases (additional evidence potentially admissible against them).
  • Prosecutors, defense counsel, and civil litigants (changes to trial practice and strategies).
  • Courts and judges (new admissibility determinations and potential need to craft limiting instructions).

Procedural / timeline aspects

  • AJR 16 is a joint resolution proposing a change to the Rules of Evidence; it does not itself change substantive statute but directs the state Supreme Court to adopt a rule.
  • If the resolution is approved and delivered to the Governor, the Supreme Court may promulgate the rule via order under the streamlined procedure in P.L.1960, c.52.
  • Current status: introduced and referred to committee (Assembly Judiciary Committee). Companion measure SJR 32 tracks similar language.

Potential impacts and legal considerations

  • Proponents argue the change would help corroborate victims’ accounts, counteract misconceptions about delayed reporting, and assist juries in evaluating credibility.
  • Opponents or courts may raise concerns about reliability and unfair prejudice from admitting out‑of‑court statements, particularly when the declarant is unavailable for cross‑examination.
  • In criminal cases, any rule admitting out‑of‑court statements must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Confrontation Clause (see Crawford v. Washington); the Supreme Court’s implementing rule would need safeguards (e.g., reliability standards, limiting instructions) to address those constitutional issues.

This summary focuses on the introduced resolution’s aims and mechanics; the exact scope, wording, and safeguards for admissibility would be set by the Supreme Court if it adopts a rule pursuant to this joint resolution.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.