COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED October 3, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-0307
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LINDA WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MICHAEL J. SKWIERAWSKI, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J.,
Sullivan and Schudson, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Linda Williams, pro se, appeals from
a judgment entered in favor of Allstate Insurance Co. on Allstate's subrogation
claim against Williams. Williams
claims: (1) her constitutional rights were violated by the exclusion of a
police report; (2) the trial court erred in excluding a police report; and
(3) the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. Because Williams did not file a transcript
relevant to these issues, we must affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1992,
Williams entered the home of her sister, Viola Johnson, and engaged in an
argument with another sister, Marcella, who was baby-sitting in the Johnson
home. During the argument, certain
property was damaged. Johnson made a
claim for the property damage with Allstate, who insured Johnson's home. Allstate adjustor Ellen Yopps investigated
the claim and concluded that appliances, furniture, housewares, a television
and a VCR were damaged either by a blunt object or from an individual falling
on the property. Allstate paid the
claim and then sued Williams in a subrogation action to try to collect the
amount paid.
Williams represented
herself in a bench trial in December 1994.
Allstate called Yopps, Johnson, and Marcella as witnesses. Williams also testified. Williams did not call any of her own
witnesses. During the trial, Williams
attempted to introduce a police report that purportedly recorded the
incident. The trial court excluded the
report on hearsay grounds.
After hearing the
evidence, the trial court found in favor of Allstate. The trial court found that all the property that was the subject
of the claim had in fact been damaged and that Williams was 100% at fault for
the damage that occurred. Judgment was
entered in the amount of $2,162.88, plus costs. Williams now appeals from that judgment.
II. DISCUSSION
Williams's first two
contentions revolve around the exclusion of a police report, which is an
evidentiary ruling, and thus, left to the discretion of the trial court. See Prill v. Hampton,
154 Wis.2d 667, 678, 453 N.W.2d 909, 913 (Ct. App. 1990). The third issue, insufficiency of the
evidence, is based on the credibility of the witnesses. Williams argues that the trial court should
have accepted her testimony instead of the other witnesses' testimony. Credibility issues are also left to the
discretion of the trial court. Gehr
v. City of Sheboygan, 81 Wis.2d 117, 122, 260 N.W.2d 30, 33
(1977); Milbauer v. Transport Employes' Mut. Benefit Soc'y,
56 Wis.2d 860, 865, 203 N.W.2d 135, 138 (1973).
Our review on
discretionary issues is limited to whether the trial court erroneously
exercised its discretion. Gehr,
81 Wis.2d at 122, 260 N.W.2d at 33. In
employing this standard, we ordinarily review the transcripts relevant to the
specific claims raised. Unfortunately,
Williams declined to file the trial transcript. We must assume, in the absence of the transcript, that every fact
essential to sustain the trial court's exercise of discretion is supported by
the record. See Austin v.
Ford Motor Co., 86 Wis.2d 628, 641, 273 N.W.2d 233, 239 (1979). For this court to even consider reversing a
trial court on a discretionary call, it is the appellant's responsibility to
furnish this court with the relevant portions of the transcript. See id. at 642, 273
N.W.2d at 239. The absence of any
transcript makes it impossible for us to consider, let alone accept, Williams's
arguments on appeal. Without the
transcripts, we must assume that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion in excluding the police report and in determining the credibility of
the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.