Background
Mohammed Shaher Wattar used a Snapchat account with a false identity to target minors. He first sexually assaulted two 14-year-old girls (A.B. and O.B.) on successive weekends. Approximately six months later, using the same account, he sent explicit sexual messages, images, and videos to two 12-year-old girls (G.K. and M.B.). The State initially charged him in two separate cases but moved to join them for trial, arguing significant similarities made the evidence cross-admissible.
The trial court granted the joinder motion. A jury convicted Wattar on all counts: two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child (A.B. and O.B.) and two counts of exposing genitals to a child and exposing a child to harmful material (G.K. and M.B.). During postconviction proceedings, the circuit court vacated the two exposing-genitals convictions under the precedent of State v. Stuckey, which holds that Wisconsin’s exposing-genitals statute does not apply to remote electronic transmissions or “sexting.”
Wattar appealed, challenging the joinder, sufficiency of evidence, trial counsel’s performance, and various evidentiary rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed all remaining convictions. The court held that joinder was proper because both cases involved the same defendant, the same Snapchat account with a similar assumed identity, age-related deception targeting underage girls from the same geographic area, and sexualized pursuit using identical methods. The crimes occurred within approximately six months, a relatively short timeframe. Critically, the Snapchat evidence in each case would have been admissible as other-acts evidence in the other case, satisfying Wisconsin’s joinder statute.
The court rejected Wattar’s retroactive misjoinder argument, finding no compelling prejudice. Although the two exposing-genitals counts were vacated, the Snapchat evidence was independently admissible to prove the surviving harmful-material charge against G.K., who testified that Wattar sent her explicit images and videos after she told him she was 14. The evidence was also properly admissible as other-acts evidence supporting the sexual assault convictions under the broader latitude rule applied in child sexual-assault cases.
The court found sufficient evidence for each conviction: A.B. and O.B. both testified to sexual contact and their age (14), corroborated by witnesses. On the harmful-material count, G.K.’s testimony that she disclosed her age to Wattar supported the jury’s finding that he knew or reasonably should have known she was under 18. The court rejected ineffective assistance claims, finding counsel’s performance deficient only as to the exposing-genitals counts (which were already remedied), and that even the witness M.N.’s postconviction testimony was merely cumulative and did not establish a reasonable probability of acquittal.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin courts apply a broad construction favoring initial joinder of related criminal cases to promote trial efficiency, provided crimes are of the same or similar character and evidence overlaps.
- In child sexual-assault cases, courts apply greater latitude in admitting evidence of similar acts by the defendant, particularly regarding modus operandi and intent, even when cases would not normally be joined.
- Remote transmission of explicit images—”sexting”—cannot constitute Wisconsin’s crime of exposing genitals to a child, per State v. Stuckey, but such conduct may support convictions for exposing a child to harmful material if knowledge of the victim’s age is proven.
- Trial courts retain wide discretion to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination, including under Wisconsin’s rape-shield statute, when the probative value is marginal compared to the risk of unfair prejudice and diversion.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Wisconsin’s framework for prosecuting coordinated sexual exploitation of multiple minor victims through online platforms. By upholding joinder, the court recognized that defendants who target multiple children using identical grooming tactics and platforms create a probative nexus justifying consolidated trials—a critical tool for prosecutors when defendants operate serially across similar victim profiles.
The opinion also clarifies the boundary between two child-protection statutes: the exposing-genitals statute, narrowly construed to apply only to in-person exposure, and the harmful-material statute, which reaches remote transmission of explicit content. This distinction matters for charging decisions and for defendants who might exploit ambiguity in statutory language. For trial practitioners, the decision confirms that trial courts have substantial discretion to shape cross-examination even when confrontation interests are implicated, provided alternative avenues for impeachment remain available.