On Point: 10. Joinder

For the 2015 SPD conference, Judge Sankovitz and Attorneys Rob Henak and Melinda Swartz prepared an excellent outline on a problem that plagues many defense lawyers on appeal.  They have a great issue. They win it, but then the court of appeals or supreme court finds the error harmless.  This detailed, well-researched outline walks you through the history of the “harmless error” doctrine and offers ideas for how to beat it in various situations.  

Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (copied from the State’s PFR here):

Crimes may be joined in one trial if they are similar or if they are connected as part of a common plan. Here, the court of appeals reversed Salinas’ conviction because it decided allegations that he sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s child, and that he intimidated his girlfriend and her child, were not similar acts or connected as part of a common plan. Is the court of appeals’ decision in conflict with the well-established rule that joinder of charges must be broadly construed?

Improper joinder is subject to harmless error review. Here, the evidence of sexual assault and victim intimidation was overhwleming. Did the court of appeals err in concluding that the joinder of the charges was not harmless?

State v. John M. Lattimore, 2013AP911-CR, District 4, 9/11/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Lattimore was convicted of 2nd-degree sexual assault with use of force and false imprisonment against S.M.  He appealed trial court decisions to: (1) join a count of 3rd-degree sexual assault against a different victim, M.H., to S.M.’s trial, (2) exclude the text of a Facebook message sent by S.M.’s brother to the defendant right after the assault, and (3) admit testimony about S.M.’s personality change after the assault.  He had no luck with the court of appeals.

State v. Bruce T. Davis, 2006 WI App 23
For Davis: Russell Bohach

Issue/Holding: Misjoined counts were harmful error, notwithstanding a curative instruction, where the only evidence connecting Davis to the crimes were eyewitnesses who, although they ID’ed Davis, gave “quite varied” descriptions to the police, ¶22.