State v. Jobert L. Molde
Citation
2025 WI 21
Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided
June 13, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Importance
54%
Case Summary
2025 WI 21 STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. JOBERT L. MOLDE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2021AP1346-CR Decided June 13, 2025 REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals Dunn County Circuit Court (Rod W. Smeltzer, J.) No. 2017CF34 HAGEDORN, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous Court. KAROFSKY, J., filed a concurring opinion. ¶1 BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. Under the Haseltine rule, witnesses may not testify that they think another witness is telling the truth. Vouching for the credibility of another witness is impermissible under the rules of evidence because it invades the province of the trier of fact—here, the jury. The question in this case is whether an expert witness violated the Haseltine rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false, but did not offer an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. We conclude she did not. We hold that statistical evidence alone on the likelihood of false reports does not violate the Haseltine rule. The defendant here alleges his counsel was constitutionally deficient for not raising a Haseltine objection STATE v. MOLDE Opinion of the Court to this testimony. Because such an objection would have failed, the defendant’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails as well. I. BACKGROUND ¶2 The issues in this case arose following allegations that, sometime between January 2011 and January 2012, Lauren1 was sexually assaulted by her father, Jobert Molde. This came to light in 2017 when Lauren—now age thirteen—attempted suicide. After Lauren’s claims were investigated, Molde was charged with one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child who had not attained the age of twelve and one count of incest with a child. The crucial evidence against Molde was Lauren’s in-court testimony recounting the assault and a recording of her forensic interview. ¶3 The circuit court granted the State’s motion to have the nurse practitioner who conducted the forensic interview testify as an expert at trial. However, she was unavailable, and the circuit court permitted Dr. Alice Swenson—a licensed child abuse pediatrician who supervised Lauren’s forensic interview and examination—to testify instead. The record is unclear about what her supervision entailed other than it was in real time; but Dr. Swenson did not personally conduct an evaluation of Lauren. Dr. Swenson testified about her background and work as a licensed child abuse pediatrician, how child forensic interviews tend to proceed, what sort of evidence they look for in a physical forensic exam, background about how children’s memories work, Lauren’s admission to the hospital, and the possibility of intercourse between an adult and child. She did not testify about Lauren’s truthfulness or how likely it is that Lauren was telling the truth during the interview. ¶4 After Dr. Swenson’s testimony, one juror submitted two questions, which the circuit court previously instructed was permissible. Following a sidebar, Molde’s counsel did not object to the questions being read to the witness: THE COURT: Doctor, it says how frequent is it for children to make up a story of sexual abuse? 1 “Lauren” is a pseudonym. See WIS. STAT. § (Rule) 809.86(1), (4). 2 STATE v. MOLDE Opinion of the Court THE WITNESS: False disclosures are extraordinarily rare, like in the one percent of all disclosures are false disclosures. THE COURT: Second part of that is why would they do that? THE WITNESS: I don’t think I really have an answer to that. Molde’s attorney did not object or otherwise challenge Dr. Swenson’s answers. The court then permitted Molde’s counsel to ask a follow-up question: [MOLDE’S COUNSEL]: Are there particular studies that have been conducted regarding the reporting of false accusations? THE WITNESS: There are that I’ve read, yes. I don’t know the names of them off the top of my head. ¶5 The trial proceeded and the jury found Molde guilty on both counts. Following his conviction, Molde moved for postconviction relief. He contended that his trial counsel should have objected to Dr. Swenson’s testimony as impermissible vouching, and this failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the motion, in part because Dr. Swenson did not comment “on the credibility of the victim in this case as to whether she was telling the truth or n
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 13, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
2025 WI 21
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,
v.
JOBERT L. MOLDE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2021AP1346-CR
Decided June 13, 2025
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals
Dunn County Circuit Court (Rod W. Smeltzer, J.) No. 2017CF34
HAGEDORN, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous
Court. KAROFSKY, J., filed a concurring opinion.
¶1 BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. Under the Haseltine rule, witnesses
may not testify that they think another witness is telling the truth. Vouching for the credibility of another witness is impermissible under the rules of evidence because it invades the province of the trier of fact—here, the jury. The question in this case is whether an expert witness violated the Haseltine rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false, but did not offer an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. We conclude she did not. We hold that statistical evidence alone on the likelihood of false reports does not violate the Haseltine rule. The defendant here alleges his counsel was constitutionally deficient for not raising a Haseltine objection STATE v. MOLDE Opinion of the Court
to this testimony. Because such an objection would have failed, the defendant’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails as well.
I. BACKGROUND
¶2 The issues in this case arose following allegations that,
sometime between January 2011 and January 2012, Lauren1 was sexually assaulted by her father, Jobert Molde. This came to light in 2017 when Lauren—now age thirteen—attempted suicide. After Lauren’s claims were investigated, Molde was charged with one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child who had not attained the age of twelve and one count of incest with a child. The crucial evidence against Molde was Lauren’s in-court testimony recounting the assault and a recording of her forensic interview.
¶3 The circuit court granted the State’s motion to have the
nurse practitioner who conducted the forensic interview testify as an expert at trial. However, she was unavailable, and the circuit court permitted Dr. Alice Swenson—a licensed child abuse pediatrician who supervised Lauren’s forensic interview and examination—to testify instead. The record is unclear about what her supervision entailed other than it was in real time; but Dr. Swenson did not personally conduct an evaluation of Lauren. Dr. Swenson testified about her background and work as a licensed child abuse pediatrician, how child forensic interviews tend to proceed, what sort of evidence they look for in a physical forensic exam, background about how children’s memories work, Lauren’s admission to the hospital, and the possibility of intercourse between an adult and child. She did not testify about Lauren’s truthfulness or how likely it is that Lauren was telling the truth during the interview.
¶4 After Dr. Swenson’s testimony, one juror submitted two
questions, which the circuit court previously instructed was permissible. Following a sidebar, Molde’s counsel did not object to the questions being read to the witness:
THE COURT: Doctor, it says how frequent is it for children
to make up a story of sexual abuse?
1 “Lauren” is a pseudonym. See WIS. STAT. § (Rule) 809.86(1), (4).
2
STATE v. MOLDE Opinion of the Court
THE WITNESS: False disclosures are extraordinarily rare,
like in the one percent of all disclosures are false disclosures.
THE COURT: Second part of that is why would they do
that?
THE WITNESS: I don’t think I really have an answer to that.
Molde’s attorney did not object or otherwise challenge Dr. Swenson’s answers. The court then permitted Molde’s counsel to ask a follow-up question:
[MOLDE’S COUNSEL]: Are there particular studies that
have been conducted regarding the reporting of false
accusations?
THE WITNESS: There are that I’ve read, yes. I don’t know
the names of them off the top of my head.
¶5 The trial proceeded and the jury found Molde guilty on both
counts. Following his conviction, Molde moved for postconviction relief. He contended that his trial counsel should have objected to Dr. Swenson’s testimony as impermissible vouching, and this failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the motion, in part because Dr. Swenson did not comment “on the credibility of the victim in this case as to whether she was telling the truth or n
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 13, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools