On Point: L. Harmless Error

Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.

State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity

Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.

State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.

S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of  defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.

State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.

Grant County v. T.L.M., 2025AP500, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.L.M. challenges her recommitment, arguing that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over her objection, and that the court failed to make the required factual findings to support the commitment. COA concludes that although the circuit court erroneously admitted some hearsay, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court satisfied the demands of Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

State v. Derek J. Jarvi 2023AP2136-CR, 6/12/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Despite the State’s efforts to overturn Jarvi’s postconviction win of a new trial, the court of appeals rejects the State’s evidentiary arguments and holds that it failed to prove harmless error in this case.

State v. Catherine E. Edwards, 2023AP1042-CR, 3/6/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Edwards’s appeal focuses on the definition of “lewd exhibition of intimate parts” and the state’s closing arguments as to child pornography. COA rejects Edwards’s arguments on appeal and affirms her convictions for possession of child pornography.

State v. A.M.N., 2024AP440-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While the State concedes that A.M.N.’s statutory right to appear in person for a competency hearing was violated, COA finds the error harmless and affirms.

State v. K.R.W., 2024AP1210, 2/19/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although COA does not address K.R.W.’s broader constitutional argument, it holds that suppression is warranted given the State’s violation of a statute requiring an intake worker to warn a juvenile of his right to counsel and right against self-incrimination before taking that juvenile’s statement.