reasonable possibility error in Wisconsin

2026The test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue.” Schwigel v. Kohlmann, 2005 WI App 44, ¶11 , 280 Wis. 2d 193 , 694 N.W.2d 467 (citation omitted). ¶22 We conclude that the circuit court’s error—namely, directing the State to give its closing argument before Thornburg presented his case-in-chief— 3 Within this argument, Thornburg suggests that the circuit court discriminated against him due to his disability.

2026The test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue.” Schwigel v. Kohlmann, 2005 WI App 44, ¶11 , 280 Wis. 2d 193 , 694 N.W.2d 467 (citation omitted). ¶22 We conclude that the circuit court’s error—namely, directing the State to give its closing argument before Thornburg presented his case-in-chief— 3 Within this argument, Thornburg suggests that the circuit court discriminated against him due to his disability.

2012In order for an error to affect the substantial rights of a party within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 805.18 (2), "there must be a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue." Martindale, 246 Wis. 2d 67, ¶ 32 ; Nommensen, 246 Wis. 2d 132, ¶ 52 ; see also State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 41 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (clarifying that the phrase "reasonable possibility" has the same substantive meaning as the phrase "reasonable probability" used by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)

2002Co., 2001 WI 112 , 246 Wis. 2d 132 , 629 N.W.2d 301 , was whether there existed a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome, and that a reasonable possibility is one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

2018"The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." State v. Sullivan , 216 Wis. 2d 768 , 792, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).

2018"The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." State v. Sullivan , 216 Wis. 2d 768 , 792, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).

2001Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 2001 WI 109 , 245 Wis. 2d 772 , 629 N.W.2d 727 ; Koffman v. Leichtfuss, 2001 WI 111 , 246 Wis. 2d 31 , 630 N.W.2d 201 ; Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113 , 246 Wis. 2d 67 , 629 N.W.2d 698 ; State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543, 547 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).

2001The majority's standard is "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome," and that a "reasonable possibility" is one "sufficient to `undermine confidence in the outcome.'" Id. (quoting State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 545 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985)).

2023A reasonable possibility of a different outcome is a possibility sufficient to ‘undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Id., ¶32 (quoted source and citation omitted). ¶30 Determining if an error is harmless calls for the consideration of a “variety of factors,” including but not limited to: “the frequency of the error, the nature of the [County]’s case, the nature of the defense, the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence to [either party]’s case, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously included or excluded evidence, whether errone

2023A reasonable possibility of a different outcome is a possibility sufficient to ‘undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Id., ¶32 (quoted source and citation omitted). ¶30 Determining if an error is harmless calls for the consideration of a “variety of factors,” including but not limited to: “the frequency of the error, the nature of the [County]’s case, the nature of the defense, the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence to [either party]’s case, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously included or excluded evidence, whether errone

2021In such a case, we examine the record to determine whether the communication, “in light of the entire trial,” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.4 State v. Burton, 112 Wis. 2d 560, 571 , 334 N.W.2d 263 (1983) 4 Spencer argues that, should this court apply the harmless error test, that the applicable standard is whether there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.

2021In such a case, we examine the record to determine whether the communication, “in light of the entire trial,” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.4 State v. Burton, 112 Wis. 2d 560, 571 , 334 N.W.2d 263 (1983) 4 Spencer argues that, should this court apply the harmless error test, that the applicable standard is whether there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.

2021Stated differently, an error “is harmless if it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” State v. Hunt, 2014 WI 102, ¶26 , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , 851 N.W.2d 434 (citations omitted).

2021Stated differently, an error “is harmless if it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” State v. Hunt, 2014 WI 102, ¶26 , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , 851 N.W.2d 434 (citations omitted).

2010An error affects the substantial rights of the parties if "there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the case." Estate of Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2006 WI App 248, ¶ 152 , 297 Wis. 2d 70 , 727 N.W.2d 857 .

2010An error affects the substantial rights of the parties if "there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the case." Estate of Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2006 WI App 248, ¶ 152 , 297 Wis. 2d 70 , 727 N.W.2d 857 .

2004A reasonable possibility is a possibility sufficient to undermine our confidence in the conviction.' State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58 , 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶ 50 , 644 N.W.2d 919 ." Brief of Plaintiff-Respondent at 20. [19] State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72, ¶ 48 , 262 Wis. 2d 506 , 664 N.W.2d 97 ; State v. Billings, 110 Wis. 2d 661, 668-70 , 329 N.W.2d 192 (1983). [20] See State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, ¶ 34 , 261 Wis. 2d 811 , 661 N.W.2d 435 ; concurring op., ¶ 40. [21] Id. [22] State v. Midell, 39 Wis. 2d 733, 738-39 , 159 N.W.2d 614 (1968). [23] State v. Smith, 203 Wis. 2d 288, 297-98 , 553 N.W.2d

2004A reasonable possibility is a possibility sufficient to undermine our confidence in the conviction.' State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58 , 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶ 50 , 644 N.W.2d 919 ." Brief of Plaintiff-Respondent at 20. [19] State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72, ¶ 48 , 262 Wis. 2d 506 , 664 N.W.2d 97 ; State v. Billings, 110 Wis. 2d 661, 668-70 , 329 N.W.2d 192 (1983). [20] See State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, ¶ 34 , 261 Wis. 2d 811 , 661 N.W.2d 435 ; concurring op., ¶ 40. [21] Id. [22] State v. Midell, 39 Wis. 2d 733, 738-39 , 159 N.W.2d 614 (1968). [23] State v. Smith, 203 Wis. 2d 288, 297-98 , 553 N.W.2d

2002State v. Jackson, 216 Wis. 2d 646, 668 , 575 N.W.2d 475 (1998); State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).

2002State v. Jackson, 216 Wis. 2d 646, 668 , 575 N.W.2d 475 (1998); State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).

1986In State v. Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d 247 , 378 N.W. 2d 272 (1985), this court reiterated that the test for non-constitutional harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

1986In State v. Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d 247 , 378 N.W. 2d 272 (1985), this court reiterated that the test for non-constitutional harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

1994Id. at 197 , 456 N.W.2d at 450 (citing State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222, 232 (1985)).

1994Id. (citing State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222, 232 (1985)).

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303 , 308, 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

1987The Dyess court also noted that in a number of cases involving non-constitutional error this court has concluded that the proper test was whether there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction, citing State v. Cartagena, 99 Wis. 2d 657, 671 , 299 N.W.2d 872 (1981), Barrera v. State, 99 Wis. 2d 269, 295 , 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), Pohl v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 290, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980), and Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 303, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979), as examples.

2025The test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue.” Schwigel v. Kohlmann, 2005 WI App 44, ¶11 , 280 Wis. 2d 193 , 694 N.W.2d 467 ; Barron County v. K.L., No. 2021AP133, unpublished slip op., ¶35 (WI App Aug. 9, 2022).8 “[T]his court must be satisfied … that the jury would have arrived at the same verdict had the error not occurred.” State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶45 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 . 7 WISCONSIN STAT. § 51.20(10)(c) similarly provides, “The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard an

2025The test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue.” Schwigel v. Kohlmann, 2005 WI App 44, ¶11 , 280 Wis. 2d 193 , 694 N.W.2d 467 ; Barron County v. K.L., No. 2021AP133, unpublished slip op., ¶35 (WI App Aug. 9, 2022).8 “[T]his court must be satisfied … that the jury would have arrived at the same verdict had the error not occurred.” State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶45 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 . 7 WISCONSIN STAT. § 51.20(10)(c) similarly provides, “The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard an

2025Id. ¶16 Adams points to eight pages of school records that were not initially disclosed and, in his view, bear upon Jennifer’s credibility and competency. 6 The 5 State v. Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372 , 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997) was overruled by Johnson, at least insofar as it represented an approval of the Shiffra/Green framework. 6 Because the school records remain confidential, we discuss them only at a high level of generality. 7 No. 2020AP1866-CR analysis called for under WIS.

2025Id. ¶16 Adams points to eight pages of school records that were not initially disclosed and, in his view, bear upon Jennifer’s credibility and competency. 6 The 5 State v. Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372 , 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997) was overruled by Johnson, at least insofar as it represented an approval of the Shiffra/Green framework. 6 Because the school records remain confidential, we discuss them only at a high level of generality. 7 No. 2020AP1866-CR analysis called for under WIS.

2025An error affects a party’s substantial rights if there is “a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue.” Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶28 , 246 Wis. 2d 1 , 629 N.W.2d 768 . “[A] reasonable possibility [is] one which is sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Patricia A.M., 176 Wis. 2d 542, 556 , 500 N.W.2d 289 (1993). “[A] reviewing court must look to the totality of [the] record and determine whether the error contributed to the trial’s outcome.” Id. at 556-57 .

2025An error affects a party’s substantial rights if there is “a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or proceeding at issue.” Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶28 , 246 Wis. 2d 1 , 629 N.W.2d 768 . “[A] reasonable possibility [is] one which is sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Patricia A.M., 176 Wis. 2d 542, 556 , 500 N.W.2d 289 (1993). “[A] reviewing court must look to the totality of [the] record and determine whether the error contributed to the trial’s outcome.” Id. at 556-57 .