State v. Ryan E. Moston

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
November 3, 2021
To:
Hon. Michael P. Maxwell
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Monica Paz
Clerk of Circuit Court
Waukesha County
Electronic Notice
Thomas C. Simon
Electronic Notice
Michael Davis Thurston
Electronic Notice
Jennifer L. Vandermeuse
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2019AP1888-CR State of Wisconsin v. Ryan E. Moston (L.C. #2016CF1024)
Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Reilly, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Ryan E. Moston appeals from an amended judgment convicting him of stalking (with
bodily harm), false imprisonment and substantial battery, all as domestic abuse, and from a
judgment convicting him of disorderly conduct and five counts of misdemeanor battery. On
appeal, he challenges the circuit court’s evidentiary ruling allowing an expert to testify about the
general principles and features of domestic violence. Based upon our review of the briefs and
record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See

No. 2019AP1888-CR
2
WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2019-20).1 We affirm because the circuit court properly exercised its
discretion when it permitted the domestic violence expert’s exposition testimony at trial.
The charges against Moston arose out of numerous instances of domestic violence
directed at his spouse. Pretrial, the State gave notice that it intended to present Cyrus Behroozi
as an expert in the field of domestic violence to discuss the centrality of power and control in
domestic violence, why domestic violence victims often remain in violent relationships, and how
children are used to maintain control over the victim. Moston sought a Daubert2 hearing. After
the hearing, the circuit court determined that Behroozi could testify as an expert, and he testified
at trial. The jury convicted Moston, and he challenges the circuit court’s evidentiary ruling on
appeal.
On appeal, Moston argues that Behroozi’s testimony did not assist the jury in
understanding or determining any fact in the case, his testimony and opinion were not based on
sufficient facts, and his testimony indirectly bolstered the victim’s credibility. The State
counters that the circuit court applied the proper legal standards and properly exercised its
discretion when it admitted Behroozi’s expert testimony. We agree with the State.
Whether to admit expert testimony was discretionary with the circuit court. State v.
Jones, 2018 WI 44, ¶33, 381 Wis. 2d 284, 911 N.W.2d 97. “Expert testimony … is required
only if the issue to be decided by the trier of fact is beyond the general knowledge and
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
2 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

No. 2019AP1888-CR
3
experience of the average juror.” State v. Owen, 202 Wis. 2d 620, 632, 551 N.W.2d 50 (Ct.
App. 1996).
WISCONSIN STAT. § 907.02(1) “permit[s] an expert witness to testify in the form of an
opinion ‘or otherwise,’ including exposition testimony on general principles without explicitly
applying those principles to, or even having knowledge of, the specific facts of the case.” State
v. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, ¶42, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609. Before allowing exposition
testimony, “the circuit court, as gatekeeper, must consider the following four factors:”
(1) whether the expert is qualified; (2) whether the testimony will
address a subject matter on which the factfinder can be assisted by
an expert; (3) whether the testimony is reliable; and (4) whether
the testimony will ‘fit’ the facts of the case.
Id., ¶43 (citation omitted). Testimony is helpful or fits “if it concerns a matter beyond the
understanding of the average person, assists the jury in understanding facts at issue, or puts the
facts in context.” Id., ¶44 (citation omitted). “Establishing the fit of exposition testimony is
particularly important because, unlike opinion testimony, exposition testimony does not in and of
itself explicitly connect the witness’s expertise to the particular facts of the case.” Id.
In making its pretrial decision to admit Behroozi’s testimony, the circuit court rejected
Moston’s arguments that Behroozi was not qualified and that his testimony would be speculative
and unreliable. The circuit court found that Behroozi had considerable experience, training and
background with domestic violence cases and that he was an expert qualified to testify regarding
the “power and control wheel and how it relates to instances of domestic violence.” 3 The court
3 Behroozi described the power and control wheel, which was developed and published in 1984,
as “pretty much the gold standard as it relates to training around power and control and the tactics that
perpetrators of domestic violence use to control their victims when they are in intimate relationships.”

No. 2019AP1888-CR
4
also assessed the reliability of the power and control wheel. The circuit court determined that
Behroozi was “qualified to offer testimony through use of the power and control wheel model as
to the common means and methods used by domestic abuser[s] or the reactions or effects on a
victim of domestic violence.”4
We conclude that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it admitted
Behroozi’s exposition testimony. See id., ¶27. The circuit court considered the appropriate
Dobbs factors and reasonably concluded that Behroozi’s testimony fit the facts of the case.
Behroozi was qualified as an expert, could discuss the power and control wheel, and could offer
specialized knowledge to educate the jury about domestic violence principles. Behroozi’s
testimony gave the jury a framework for assessing the conduct of Moston and the victim in the
case.
We reject Moston’s complaint that Behroozi did not rely upon adequate facts to testify in
this case (essentially an argument that Behroozi’s testimony did not fit the case).5 See id., ¶42.
Behroozi’s testimony need not have been conditioned on applying the domestic violence
principles he discussed to the facts of the case. See id., ¶44. It was the jury’s role to draw
4 At trial, Behroozi testified about his training and experience with regard to domestic violence
issues. Behroozi explained the origins, components and application of the power and control wheel to
understanding domestic violence (i.e., why a victim would remain in a violent relationship and the
characteristics of batterers). Behroozi testified about the characteristics of victims of domestic violence,
but he did not testify about any facts of Moston’s case.
5 We do not address Moston’s argument that Behroozi’s testimony impermissibly bolstered the
victim’s credibility because Moston cites no legal authority for the proposition. State v. Pettit, 171
Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (we will not develop a litigant’s legal argument).

No. 2019AP1888-CR
5
inferences from Behroozi’s testimony and the other evidence in the case. See id., ¶36;6 see also
State v. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, ¶49, 273 Wis. 2d 250, 682 N.W.2d 12 (credibility determinations
were for the jury).
We conclude that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it admitted
Behroozi’s exposition testimony at trial.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the circuit court are summarily affirmed pursuant
to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals
6 Because we affirm on State v. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609,
exposition testimony grounds, we need not address Moston’s arguments distinguishing State v. Jensen,
147 Wis. 2d 240, 432 N.W.2d 913 (1988) (expert witness may be asked to describe the complainant’s
behavior and then describe the behavior of victims of the same type of crime, if the testimony helps the
jury understand a complainant’s reactive behavior). “We decide cases on the narrowest possible
grounds,” and we do not reach issues we need not reach. Village of Slinger v. Polk Props. LLC, 2021 WI
29, ¶26 n.12, 396 Wis. 2d 342, 957 N.W.2d 229.