On Point: L. Harmless Error

decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau

Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):

Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error.

Homicide case, tried on State’s theory Rhodes had motive to kill victim for beating Rhodes’ sister; court of appeals reversed because trial judge cut off cross-examination that Rhodes did not react violently in response to prior harm inflicted by victim on sister.

State v. Jason M. Bruckbauer, 2009AP1823-CR, District 4, 8/19/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bruckbauer: Dennis Schertz; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Harmless Error

Any error in admission of a pretrial ID of Bruckbauer from a photo array was harmless, where: the challenged ID didn’t directly implicate him in the homicide but merely placed him at the scene;

State v. Walter Allison, Jr., 2010 WI App 103; for Allison: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Summary judgment in favor of discharge isn’t an available option under § 980.09.

¶18 Applying the principles governing statutory interpretation to Wis. Stat. § 980.09, it is clear that the legislature explicitly prescribed a different procedure from those outlined in Wis.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Knapp: David M. Helmke; BiC; Resp.

Harmless Error – Prior Conviction
Inadmissible testimony suggestive of a prior conviction (Knapp’s statement upon arrest “that he was going to jail again”) was non-prejudicial: Knapp himself testified he had a prior conviction and nothing in the inadmissible testimony indicated the nature of the prior.

State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268
For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser

Issue/Holding:

¶43      If a defendant’s right to a public trial is determined to have been violated, the defendant need not show prejudice; the doctrine of harmless error does not apply to structural errors. [15]

 [15]  See Neder v.

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object.  State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶57      In summary, while the termination from the community treatment program and the rule violation were presented as conduct that, along with the hotel incident,

State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decision
For Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis

Issue/Holding: Various discovery and evidentiary violations amounted to harmless error, whether taken singly (¶¶41-59, ¶87-90) or cumulatively (¶¶109-113).Harmless error discussions are largely fact-specific, and this case is no exception. But it is noteworthy for its recognition that the “court has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of way,” ¶42.

State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Issue/Holding

¶42      … (S)tructural error [is] a “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991); State v. Shirley E.

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶47      In determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, the inquiry is as follows: “‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’” State v. Harvey,