State v. Stavros George Iliopoulos

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 21, 2026
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2024AP1968-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2018CF341

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

STAVROS GEORGE ILIOPOULOS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Oneida County:
MICHAEL H. BLOOM, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz, and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions 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).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Stavros George Iliopoulos appeals from a
judgment convicting him of child enticement, false imprisonment, and first-degree
No. 2024AP1968-CR

sexual assault of a child (sexual contact with a child under age 13). Iliopoulos
argues that the State violated his right to due process by failing to preserve the
original version of a surveillance video, which Iliopoulos contends was apparently
exculpatory. We reject this argument and affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 According to the criminal complaint, on November 20, 2018,
ten-year-old Mary1 reported that Iliopoulos, a janitor at her elementary school, had
sexually assaulted her at school earlier that day. Mary told a forensic interviewer
that when she left her classroom to use the restroom, she saw Iliopoulos standing
outside of the restroom. He asked her for a hug, and she refused. He then took
her into a closet near the restroom, closed the door, and began hugging her. 2 Mary
reported that Iliopoulos also kissed her on the lips and neck; pulled up her shirt
and touched her breast over her bra; kissed her stomach; and put his hand down
her pants and inside her underwear and touched “the side of her leg toward the
back of her buttocks.” Iliopoulos eventually stopped, told Mary not to tell anyone,
and let her out of the closet.

¶3 The complaint further recounted that Sergeant Greg Gardner of the
Oneida County Sheriff’s Office “reviewed video recordings of the hallway outside
of the bathroom and the closet at the school” from the day of the alleged assault.
According to the complaint:

1
Pursuant to the policy underlying WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86(4) (2023-24), we refer to
the victim using a pseudonym. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24
version.
2
It is undisputed that the closet where the assault allegedly occurred was a janitor’s
closet.

2
No. 2024AP1968-CR

At 11:08:47, Iliopoulos is seen in the hallway as Mary exits
a classroom, briefly stops in front of Iliopoulos and
immediately enters the girls restroom and Iliopoulos walks
down the hallway. At 11:09:35 Iliopoulos returns down the
hallway, then turns right into the alcove for the girls
restroom where the door to the closet is also located. A
different camera angle shows both Iliopoulos and Mary
walk toward the closet. At 11:14:46, Mary walks back to
the classroom, and at 11:16:48, Iliopoulos walks from the
alcove.

¶4 During an interview with law enforcement following the alleged
assault, Iliopoulos stated that he was in a closet near the girls’ restroom when a
girl came over to him, asked what was in the closet, and came into the closet.
Iliopoulos stated that the door closed automatically, but he immediately opened it
and pushed the girl out of the closet, telling her to “get the hell out of here.”
Iliopoulos then told the girl not to tell anyone about being in the closet.

¶5 In September 2019, a jury found Iliopoulos guilty of all three of the
charges against him. Iliopoulos filed a postconviction motion for a new trial,
alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court granted that
motion and vacated Iliopoulos’s judgment of conviction.

¶6 Iliopoulos, represented by new counsel, subsequently moved to
dismiss the complaint, alleging that the State had violated his right to due process
by failing to preserve apparently exculpatory evidence—namely, the original
surveillance video from the “East Hall” camera inside Mary’s school. As
background, this case involves surveillance videos from two cameras in the
school: the East Hall camera and the Interior Hall camera. Neither camera
captured the door of the closet where Mary alleged that the assault took place.
Instead, the East Hall camera was positioned at the end of a hallway, with the
alcove containing the closet and the girls’ restroom located on the right side of the
hallway about halfway between the camera and a set of exterior doors at the

3
No. 2024AP1968-CR

hallway’s other end. The Interior Hall camera, in turn, was positioned across from
the alcove but was angled so that the closet door and the entrance to the girls’
restroom were hidden behind a wall.

¶7 It is undisputed that the State failed to preserve the original
surveillance video from the East Hall camera.3 However, before the original video
was destroyed, the school district’s network administrator helped law enforcement
make a copy of the video by using “screen-capturing software” to record what
appeared on a monitor while the original video was being played from the school
district’s server. The same method was used to make a copy of the video from the
Interior Hall camera. We will refer to these screen-captured videos, respectively,
as the “East Hall video” and the “Interior Hall video.” In addition to the two
screen-captured videos, two original video clips from the Interior Hall camera
were preserved, both of which depicted events that were also included in the
longer, screen-captured version on the Interior Hall video.4

¶8 The parties agree that the East Hall video shows the following.5 The
video begins at 11:01:09 a.m. At 11:01:15, Iliopoulos enters the camera’s view
3
The original video from the East Hall camera was apparently destroyed pursuant to the
school district’s 15-day data retention policy for surveillance videos.
4
It is unclear from the record and the parties’ briefs why the original video from the East
Hall camera was destroyed pursuant to the school district’s data retention policy, but two original
video clips from the Interior Hall camera were retained.
5
The East Hall video shows a clock on the bottom right of the screen that indicates the
time and date when the screen-captured recording of the original video was made. Above that is
another clock purporting to show the time and date of the events depicted in the video, using the
time recorded by the server that controls the school district’s surveillance cameras. The time
stamps discussed above are taken from the server clock.

Additionally, the State notes in its brief that although the East Hall camera was motion
activated, the video “remains essentially continuous … because [the camera] is positioned near a
classroom full of students moving around.”

4
No. 2024AP1968-CR

from the bottom of the frame and walks up the hallway, away from the camera. At
11:01:35, Iliopoulos enters a room at the far end of the hallway and exits from the
camera’s view. At 11:08:38, Iliopoulos re-enters the hallway and walks back
toward the camera. At 11:08:41, Mary enters the hallway from the left, turns
toward Iliopoulos, and stands in front of him with her hands on her hips outside of
the restroom alcove. Mary then proceeds into the alcove at 11:08:46. Iliopoulos
then walks down the hallway toward the camera before disappearing from view.
At 11:09:18, Iliopoulos reappears at the bottom of the frame and walks back up
the hallway, before entering the alcove and leaving the camera’s view at 11:09:34.

¶9 Thereafter, the East Hall video shows a student walking up the
hallway and entering the restroom alcove at 11:11:15. At 11:11:23, a male teacher
enters the hallway and proceeds to use a photocopier outside of the alcove before
leaving the area at 11:11:45. At 11:14:10, a female teacher exits a room at the far
end of the hallway and then walks past the alcove before entering the room next to
it at 11:14:29. The video ultimately shows Iliopoulos leaving the alcove at
11:16:44 before walking down the hallway toward the camera and out of the
frame.

¶10 It is undisputed that there are three irregularities or discrepancies
regarding the East Hall video. First, Sergeant Gardner’s report, which was
introduced into evidence at the hearing on Iliopoulos’s motion to dismiss, states
that on the day of the alleged assault, Gardner reviewed video footage from the
East Hall camera and “observed [Mary] exit the bathroom and return to [her]
classroom” at 11:14:46. The screen-captured version of the East Hall video,
however, does not show Mary leaving the restroom alcove at 11:14:46 or at any
other time. Iliopoulos concedes that there is no “discontinuity in the server time
stamp or in the activities of the children visible in the foreground that would

5
No. 2024AP1968-CR

suggest a portion of the video was cut.” Instead, Iliopoulos posits that “[t]he only
reasonable explanation for Mary’s absence from the East Hall video is that there
was some sort of ‘glitch,’ as the circuit court put it, with the screen-capturing
process.”

¶11 Second, at 11:15:23 on the East Hall video, students and a female
teacher suddenly appear in the hallway. However, there is no apparent
discrepancy or “jump” in the server time stamp at that point in the video.

¶12 Third, the East Hall video is 14 minutes and 25 seconds long. Based
on the server time stamps shown on the video, however, the video covers 15
minutes and 49 seconds of time.

¶13 The Interior Hall video depicts many of the same events as the East
Hall video.6 The Interior Hall video begins at 11:04:46. At 11:08:42, Mary can be
seen entering the restroom alcove. At 11:09:28, Iliopoulos enters the alcove. At
11:10:53, a student walks into the alcove and enters the boys’ restroom. At

6
It is undisputed that, like the East Hall camera, the Interior Hall camera was motion
activated. However, because the camera was not detecting continuous motion during the relevant
time period, the Interior Hall video is comprised of a series of shorter video segments, each of
which was created when the camera’s motion detector was activated.

Additionally, unlike the East Hall video, the Interior Hall video contains two time
stamps—the server time stamp (which was also present on the East Hall video) and the camera
time stamp. At the beginning of the video, the server time stamp reads 11:04:46, while the
camera time stamp reads 11:07:53. The school district’s network administrator testified at the
hearing on Iliopoulos’s motion to dismiss that the server time stamp is more accurate than the
camera time stamp because the server “actually goes out to a global time clock to save its time
and date.” When asked why the camera time stamp was present on the Interior Hall video but not
the East Hall video, the network administrator responded, “It’s a button click whether it displays
on the recording or not.” The times discussed above in our summary of the Interior Hall video
correspond to the server time stamps.

6
No. 2024AP1968-CR

11:14:36, Mary leaves the alcove. The Interior Hall video ends at 11:15:36. It
does not show Iliopoulos leaving the alcove.

¶14 As Iliopoulos notes, there is also a discrepancy or irregularity in the
Interior Hall video. Specifically, 17 seconds into the video, Mary exits the
restroom alcove at 11:14:36, according to the server time stamp. One second later,
however, Mary has moved only a short distance, but the server time stamp reads
11:14:50, a 14-second increase.

¶15 In his motion to dismiss, Iliopoulos conceded that he did not “allege
bad faith on the part of anyone involved” with respect to the State’s failure to
preserve the original East Hall video. He argued, however, that the original East
Hall video was apparently exculpatory because “the video footage … does not
show [him] committing any offense”; “[i]t does not show the victim fleeing, or
appearing upset, or leaving an area with her clothes in disarray”; and it “does not
show the victim spending an unusual amount of time in the bathroom.” He further
argued, based on the discrepancies discussed above, that there were “problems
with the timeline created by the evidence submitted.” Iliopoulos also asserted that
he could not obtain comparable evidence because “[t]he security cameras in the
school operate on a sophisticated network and capture an area that is by design not
viewable by the public.”

¶16 Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied
Iliopoulos’s motion to dismiss. First, the court concluded that the evidence the
State had failed to preserve was not apparently exculpatory. The court reasoned
that the situation would be different if the State had failed to preserve a video that
actually showed the closet where the alleged assault occurred or a video showing
that Iliopoulos left the restroom area before Mary.

7
No. 2024AP1968-CR

¶17 Second, the circuit court concluded that even if the video evidence
was apparently exculpatory, Iliopoulos had failed to show that he lacked access to
comparable evidence. The court explained that the available videos—i.e., the
screen-captured versions of the East Hall video and the Interior Hall video and the
original video clips from the Interior Hall camera—“more or less depict[ed] the
accurate time frame within which the alleged victim entered the bathroom, the
defendant entered that area, and both of them exited, the alleged victim before the
defendant.” The court also noted that the Interior Hall video showed Mary’s
appearance both when she entered and exited the restroom alcove, and the defense
could therefore use that video to “make whatever arguments are available to point
out the manner in which her clothing looked when she walked into the bathroom”
and “the manner in which her clothing looked when she walked out of the
bathroom after allegedly having her shirt pulled up, limbs stuck down her pants,
et cetera.”

¶18 Iliopoulos’s case proceeded to a second jury trial, during which
Mary testified and a video of her forensic interview was played for the jury. In
addition, the State presented evidence that a sexual assault nurse examiner
examined Mary on the evening of the alleged assault and swabbed Mary’s
abdomen, leg, and an area above her right breast that would have been covered by
her shirt. An analyst from the State Crime Laboratory testified that no saliva was
detected on any of the swabs. However, Iliopoulos’s DNA was found on the swab
taken from the area above Mary’s right breast.

¶19 The principal of Mary’s elementary school testified that Mary and
another student reported the assault to him at about 1:15 p.m. on the day of the
alleged assault. He testified that Mary appeared “scared and upset” when she
made the report. On cross-examination, the principal acknowledged that the

8
No. 2024AP1968-CR

surveillance videos showed an adult using the photocopier outside the alcove at
the time of the alleged assault. He also acknowledged that, while the alleged
assault was occurring, an adult female walked past the alcove and came “pretty
close to the bathroom.” The principal further testified that he was in the hallway
at one point during the alleged assault and did not hear anything that caught his
attention.

¶20 A defense investigator testified that there was a gap of
approximately 1.5 inches between the floor and the bottom of the door on the
closet where the assault allegedly occurred. He further testified that while he was
standing in the hallway, Iliopoulos’s attorney went into the closet and tapped her
foot against the side of the sink basin and the floor. The investigator testified that
he was able to hear the tapping from multiple locations in the hallway. On
cross-examination, however, he conceded that this investigation was done after
school hours, when students and staff were not present, and that he did not know
how hard Iliopoulos’s counsel was tapping her foot.

¶21 In her closing argument, Iliopoulos’s attorney emphasized that
during the approximately five-minute period when the surveillance videos showed
that both Mary and Iliopoulos were in the alcove area, the videos also showed “a
little boy walking by going into the bathroom,” a teacher using the photocopier,
and another teacher walking down the hallway past the alcove. Defense counsel
emphasized that these individuals “failed to notice” that an assault was occurring.
Counsel also argued that Mary’s appearance when she left the alcove, as shown in
the video footage, was not consistent with her account of having just been sexually
assaulted.

9
No. 2024AP1968-CR

¶22 The jury found Iliopoulos guilty of all three charges. He now
appeals, arguing that the circuit court should have granted his motion to dismiss
because the State violated his right to due process by failing to preserve the
original East Hall video.

DISCUSSION

¶23 “[T]he due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution imposes a duty on the State to preserve exculpatory
evidence.” State v. Munford, 2010 WI App 168, ¶20, 330 Wis. 2d 575, 794
N.W.2d 264 (alteration in original; citation omitted). “When reviewing a claim
that evidence was lost or destroyed in violation of due process, we independently
apply the constitutional standard to the facts as found by the [circuit] court.” Id.

¶24 The State’s destruction of evidence violates a defendant’s right to
due process if the State: (1) failed to preserve evidence that was apparently
exculpatory; or (2) acted in bad faith by failing to preserve evidence that was
potentially exculpatory. Id. Here, Iliopoulos does not allege that the State acted
in bad faith by failing to preserve the original East Hall video. Rather, he argues
that the original video was apparently exculpatory. To succeed on this claim,
Iliopoulos must show: (1) that the video had an exculpatory value that was
apparent to those who had custody of the video before it was destroyed; and
(2) that Iliopoulos was unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably
available means. See id., ¶21.

¶25 On appeal, Iliopoulos argues that the original East Hall video was
apparently exculpatory because it would have shown that “a teacher walked by the
bathroom alcove while the assault was allegedly occurring, but did not intervene,”
and that another teacher “made photocopies near the alcove between 11:11:23 to

10
No. 2024AP1968-CR

11:11:45 a.m.,” which was “three minutes before Mary reappeared in the hallway
in the original video” and “within Mary’s estimation of when the assault was
occurring.” Iliopoulos argues:

Mary told investigators that she struggled against
Iliopoulos and repeatedly told him to stop while they were
in the closet together. Undoubtedly a teacher would have
intervened if they had heard Mary’s protestations. So if a
teacher walked by, and did nothing, that would suggest the
teacher did not hear Iliopoulos assaulting Mary. And if a
teacher did not hear Iliopoulos assaulting Mary, that in turn
would suggest that Iliopoulos was not, in fact, assaulting
Mary.

(Citation omitted.)

¶26 As a threshold matter, the State contends that Iliopoulos forfeited
this argument by failing to raise it in the circuit court. As the State correctly notes,
in the circuit court, Iliopoulos argued that the original East Hall video was
apparently exculpatory because it did not show him committing any offense; it did
not show Mary fleeing, appearing upset, or leaving the alcove with her clothes in
disarray; it did not show Mary spending an unusual amount of time in the
restroom; and because there were “problems with the timeline created by the”
existing videos. Iliopoulos did not raise any argument in the circuit court that the
original video was apparently exculpatory because it showed teachers or other
individuals in the hallway during the alleged assault.

¶27 On this record, we agree with the State that Iliopoulos forfeited his
current argument that the original East Hall video was apparently exculpatory.
See Tatera v. FMC Corp., 2010 WI 90, ¶19 n.16, 328 Wis. 2d 320, 786 N.W.2d
810 (“Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are generally deemed
forfeited.”); State v. Reese, 2014 WI App 27, ¶14 n.2, 353 Wis. 2d 266, 844
N.W.2d 396 (“This court need not address arguments that are raised for the first

11
No. 2024AP1968-CR

time on appeal.”). Nevertheless, to forestall a potential future claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, we will exercise our
discretion to address the merits of Iliopoulos’s current argument. See State v.
Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117, ¶7, 320 Wis. 2d 811, 772 N.W.2d 702
(“Forfeiture is a rule of judicial administration, and whether we apply the rule is a
matter addressed to our discretion.”).

¶28 We agree with the State that the original East Hall video was not
apparently exculpatory—that is, the video did not have an exculpatory value that
was apparent to those who had custody of it before it was destroyed. See
Munford, 330 Wis. 2d 575, ¶21. Instead, the video was highly inculpatory, as it
showed that both Mary and Iliopoulos were in the alcove area at the time when
Mary alleged that the assault occurred. Furthermore, the video showed Iliopoulos
interacting with Mary before she went into the alcove, walking up and back down
the hallway, and then entering the alcove less than one minute later, which
supported Mary’s statement to the forensic interviewer that Iliopoulos confronted
her in the alcove after she left the restroom and then forced her into the closet.

¶29 The fact that the original East Hall video showed individuals outside
the alcove at the time of the alleged assault does not mean that the video would
have had an exculpatory value that was apparent to those who had custody of the
video before it was destroyed. Notably, the assault occurred during the school day
when students and staff were present in the school, and the East Hall video shows
that at least one classroom door was open at the relevant time, with students inside
the classroom moving around and interacting with one another. The East Hall
video also shows a teacher using a photocopier outside of the alcove, which
presumably would have also made noise. Under these circumstances, we conclude
it would not have been apparent to those in custody of the original East Hall video

12
No. 2024AP1968-CR

that the individuals shown in the video walking by the alcove would have been
able to hear a sexual assault taking place inside the closet, had such an assault
occurred.7

¶30 Regardless, even assuming that the original East Hall video was
apparently exculpatory, Iliopoulos has failed to show that he was unable to obtain
comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. See id. Again,
Iliopoulos asserts that the original East Hall video was apparently exculpatory
because it showed multiple individuals walking by or near the alcove while the
assault was allegedly occurring. Even without the original East Hall video,
however, Iliopoulos was able to prove that fact to the jury using the other,
still-existing surveillance videos.

¶31 As Iliopoulos acknowledges in his brief-in-chief, the screen-captured
copy of the East Hall video showed all of the relevant events, aside from Mary
leaving the alcove. It showed both Mary and Iliopoulos entering the alcove.
Thereafter, it showed a student entering the alcove, a male teacher using a
photocopier outside of the alcove, and a female teacher walking past the alcove
and entering the room next to it. The video subsequently showed Iliopoulos
leaving the alcove. The video also showed the times when these events occurred,

7
As noted above, at trial, Iliopoulos introduced evidence that a defense investigator
positioned in the hallway was able to hear Iliopoulos’s counsel tapping her foot inside the closet.
On appeal, however, Iliopoulos develops no argument that such information was known to those
in custody of the original East Hall video before the video was destroyed. Moreover, the defense
investigator conceded that he performed his investigation after school hours, when students and
staff were not present. Additionally, the defense investigator could not say how hard Iliopoulos’s
counsel was tapping her foot while she was inside the closet. We agree with the State that “[t]he
fact that the defense investigator said he could hear Iliopoulos’s attorney hitting her foot against
the sink in an empty building tells us very little, if anything, about whether a teacher would have
been likely to notice Mary speaking in the closet during a busy school day.”

13
No. 2024AP1968-CR

based on time stamps from the server, which the school district’s network
administrator testified was synchronized to a global time clock.

¶32 Although the screen-captured version of the East Hall video did not
show Mary leaving the alcove, the Interior Hall video did. Furthermore, the
Interior Hall video showed that before Mary left the alcove, another student
entered the alcove and went into the boys’ restroom. Additionally, like the East
Hall video, the Interior Hall video contained time stamps from the server, which
was synchronized to a global time clock. Comparing the Interior Hall video and
the screen-captured version of the East Hall video, it is clear that Mary left the
alcove after the student entered the alcove, after the male teacher used the
photocopier, and after the female teacher walked past the alcove. While it is true
that there is a slight glitch in the Interior Hall video after Mary is seen leaving the
alcove, that glitch does not alter the fact that the videos—taken together—show
multiple individuals walking by the alcove before Mary left it—i.e., while the
alleged assault was occurring.

¶33 Based on the existing surveillance videos, Iliopoulos’s attorney was
able to make the same argument to the jury that Iliopoulos now makes on appeal—
namely, that multiple individuals walked past or near the alcove during the alleged
assault, and that they would have heard something if an assault had actually been
occurring in the closet at that time. As the State aptly notes, “[t]he problem for
Iliopoulos was not that the existing footage could not prove the teachers’
movements”; rather, the problem “was that this known evidence just wasn’t as
persuasive as [Iliopoulos] seems to believe it was.”

¶34 Additionally, although the screen-captured version of the East Hall
video did not show Mary leaving the alcove, Iliopoulos could have introduced

14
No. 2024AP1968-CR

Sergeant Gardner’s police report, which expressly stated that on the day of the
alleged assault, Gardner reviewed video footage from the East Hall camera and
“observed [Mary] exit the bathroom and return to [her] classroom” at 11:14:46.
Iliopoulos does not explain why Gardner’s report did not provide comparable
evidence of the time when Mary left the alcove.

¶35 In support of his claim that there was no comparable evidence
available to him, Iliopoulos argues that the time stamps on the existing videos “are
simply too unreliable to create a useable timeline between the two videos.” We
disagree. Although the screen-captured versions of both the East Hall video and
the Interior Hall video contain some discrepancies, it would nevertheless have
been clear to the jury after viewing the videos that two teachers and a student
walked by or near the alcove while the assault was allegedly occurring. The
available evidence therefore allowed Iliopoulos to make the argument to the jury
that Mary’s version of events was not credible because none of the individuals
who walked by the alcove during the relevant time frame noticed that anything
was amiss.

¶36 Iliopoulos also argues that “requiring the jury to mentally reconcile
the two videos does not have the same impact and evidentiary value of actually
seeing the teachers in the hallway and then Mary entering the hallway shortly
afterwards.” In support of this argument, Iliopoulos relies on State v. Huggett,
2010 WI App 69, 324 Wis. 2d 786, 783 N.W.2d 675.

¶37 In Huggett, the defendant was charged with second-degree
intentional homicide after shooting his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend. Id., ¶¶1-3. The
State failed to preserve threatening voicemail messages that the victim left on the
defendant’s and his girlfriend’s cell phones shortly before the shooting. Id., ¶¶1-2.

15
No. 2024AP1968-CR

On appeal, we rejected the State’s argument that comparable evidence was
available to the defendant—namely, threatening text messages from the victim and
witness testimony regarding the contents of the deleted voicemails. Id., ¶¶21-24.
We explained that although the defendant and his girlfriend recalled, generally,
that the voicemails were threatening, neither of them “could sufficiently recall the
precise language used,” and a deputy who had listened to part of one of the
voicemails “could only recall that she came away with the perception that the
message should be preserved.” Id., ¶22. We also reasoned that mere descriptions
of the voicemails “could not adequately convey [the victim’s] tone,” which would
have been central to the jury’s assessment of whether the defendant subjectively
believed that it was necessary to use deadly force against the victim and whether
that belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Id., ¶23.
Similarly, we concluded that the text messages, “by their very nature, could not
convey [the victim’s] tone.” Id., ¶24.

¶38 Huggett is materially distinguishable from the instant case because,
here, no evidentiary value was lost when the existing videos, rather than the
original East Hall video, were played at trial. The existing videos clearly showed
the times when Mary and Iliopoulos entered the alcove, the times when they left
the alcove, and the fact that multiple individuals walked by or near the alcove
during the alleged assault. As the State observes, “There was never any dispute
that several people walked by or near the alcove area during the assault. The jury
simply did not find this known evidence persuasive.” Under these circumstances,
we agree with the State that Iliopoulos’s argument that no comparable evidence
existed is essentially an attempt “to retroactively manufacture confusion and
uncertainty where none existed.”

16
No. 2024AP1968-CR

¶39 Because Iliopoulos has not shown either that the original East Hall
video was apparently exculpatory or that he lacked comparable evidence, he has
not established that the State violated his right to due process by failing to preserve
the original East Hall video. We therefore affirm Iliopoulos’s judgment of
conviction.8

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

8
Because we conclude that no due process violation occurred, we need not address the
State’s alternative argument regarding the appropriate remedy for such a violation. See Turner v.
Taylor, 2003 WI App 256, ¶1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628, 673 N.W.2d 716 (explaining that this court
need not address all issues raised by the parties if one is dispositive).

17