In
State of Wisconsin v. Betters, (WI App., June 18, 2013), a Wisconsin state appeals court rejected defendant's claim that a trial court had improperly relied on religious considerations in sentencing him to a longer term than was recommended by the pre-sentence report or requested by the state. In a plea agreement, Robert Betters plead guilty to repeated sexual assault of a child and possession of child pornography growing out of charges that he had repeated sexual contact with his girl friend's two teenage sons. As described by the appeals court:
During sentencing, the [trial] court remarked that “every child is a gift from God,” and indicated Betters’s conduct toward the boys was “an abomination in the sight of God and in the sight of man, and … totally unacceptable.”
The court of appeals concluded however:
Although the [trial] court used religious language, sparingly, during its analysis, Betters has failed to show that it is highly probable or reasonably certain his sentence was based on the court’s religious convictions. We stress again that the court’s invocations of a religious deity were ill-advised. However, not every “ill-advised word” will create reversible error.
AP reports on the Court of Appeals decision.
