Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fontegreen2 sentences2013See State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, ¶9 , 281 Wis. 2d 654 , 698 N.W.2d 594 . ¶19 Where jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review. 2013See State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, ¶9 , 281 Wis. 2d 654 , 698 N.W.2d 594 . ¶19 Where jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Harveygreen2 sentences2015However, "[w]here jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review." Beamon, 347 Wis. 2d 559, ¶ 19 (citing State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 18 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 ). 2015However, "[w]here jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review." Beamon, 347 Wis. 2d 559, ¶ 19 (citing State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 18 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Courtney C. Beamongreen2 sentences2025“Where jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review.” Beamon, 2013 WI 47, ¶19 , 347 Wis. 2d 559 , 830 N.W.2d 681 . 2025“Where jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review.” Beamon, 2013 WI 47, ¶19 , 347 Wis. 2d 559 , 830 N.W.2d 681 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2025If we determine that the error in the jury instructions was harmless, we then “evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence under the correct legal standard.” Id., ¶20. ¶31 Similarly, but separately, “[w]hen a jury instruction is challenged as confusing or misleading, such that it is subject to misinterpretation by the jury, a conviction should not be reversed ‘simply because the jury possibly could have been misled.’” Gonzalez, 335 Wis. 2d 270, ¶23 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Poellinger
green
2 sentences2015In determining whether an error was harmless, we will not overturn the jury verdict "unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to sustaining the conviction, 'is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id., ¶ 21 (quoting State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501 , 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990)). ¶ 35. 2015In determining whether an error was harmless, we will not overturn the jury verdict "unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to sustaining the conviction, 'is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id., ¶ 21 (quoting State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501 , 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990)). ¶ 35. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ford v. Stevenson
green
2 sentences2015If the "jury instructions do not accurately state the controlling law, we will examine the erroneous instructions under the standard for harmless error, which presents a question of law for our independent review." State v. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, ¶ 19 , 347 Wis. 2d 559 , 830 N.W.2d 681 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 449 (2013). 2015If a jury instruction was harmless error, we will look to whether the evidence was sufficient based upon the correct legal standard, and we will not overturn the conviction " 'unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the state and the conviction, is so lacking in probative value and force that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' based on the statutory requirements of the offense." Id., ¶ 20 (citing State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, ¶ 10 , 281 Wis. 2d 654 , 698 N.W.2d 594 ). ¶ 41. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.