On Point: F. Defendant's testimony

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1414, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; case activity
Issues:

1. Where, during the grounds phase of a TPR trial, the circuit court errs by directing a verdict in favor of the State without giving the respondent an opportunity to present evidence, has the court committed structural error, or is the error subject to a harmless error analysis?

2. If the error in this case is not structural, then was it harmless?

Crawford County v. E.K., 2016AP2063, 5/18/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This case presents multiple SCOW-worthy issues. One is an interesting constitutional dilemma. The County sought to extend E.K.’s commitment and involuntary medication order and, as evidence, offered threatening emails that E.K. had allegedly sent. Defense counsel objected because the emails had not been authenticated. So the County called E.K. to the stand to authenticate them. Defense counsel objected on 5th Amendment grounds. This prompted E.K. to say: “I’ll waive that. Yes, those are my emails.”

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; affirmed 2016 WI 26; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

Does a defendant have the right to testify at the mental responsibility phase of a bifurcated criminal proceeding?

If so, is an on-the-record colloquy regarding the waiver of the right to testify required?

State v. James Elvin Lagrone, 2013AP1424-CR, District 1, 4/7/15 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 9/9/15; affirmed 2016 WI 26; case activity (including briefs)

Does a defendant who has raised an NGI defense have the right to testify in the mental responsibility phase of the NGI proceeding? That’s the novel issue in this case. But the court of appeals doesn’t decide the question. Instead, the court ignores relevant binding case law and, relying on a case that doesn’t apply, concludes that if Lagrone had the right to testify, any error in denying it was harmless.

State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2015 WI 20, affirming unpublished COA decision; click here for docket and briefs

Resolving an issue of first impression, SCOW has decided that a defendant may forfeit his constitutional right to testify by stating an intent to bring up irrelevant matters or by engaging in conduct incompatible with the assertion of that right. Also, the erroneous denial of the right to testify is subject to a harmless error analysis–even where the record shows the defendant would testify to both relevant and irrelevant matters.

State v. Beal, 2014AP1362, 2/24/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs and docket

During his opening, defense counsel told the jury that Beal would testify to a version of events that contradicted the State’s version, but then he broke that promise. Beal claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court of appeals and held that Beal didn’t even deserve a hearing on his claim.

State v. Anthony E. Henderson, 2013AP2515, District 1, 10/7/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

If the trial court erred in excluding a witness’s attorney from testifying to information that would have impeached the witness, that error was harmless.

On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by Anthony’s PFR here ):

May a criminal defendant be stripped of his right to testify pursuant to Illinois v. Allen when his behavior is never so disruptive, obscene, or violent that he must be removed from his trial?

State v. Angelica Nelson, 2014 WI 70, 7/16/14, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; majority decision by Justice Roggensack; case activity

Nelson wanted to testify at her trial on child sexual assault charges, but after a colloquy with her about waiving her right to remain silent the trial judge wouldn’t let her because he concluded she was testifying against counsel’s advice and her testimony was “completely irrelevant” to the elements the State had to prove. (¶¶14-16). The supreme court assumes without deciding that the trial judge erred, but it follows the majority of jurisdictions in holding that erroneous denial of a defendant’s right to testify is subject to harmless error analysis because its effect on the outcome of the trial is capable of assessment.

State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2013AP467-CR, District 1, 1/14/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 8/5/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 20; case activity

Right to Testify

The trial court held that Anthony, charged with first degree intentional homicide, forfeited his right to testify based on Anthony’s “incessant” refusal to accept the trial court’s ruling that he was to answer “two” if asked about the number of his prior convictions and Anthony’s physical agitation and irrelevant rants.