defendant guilty absent error in Wisconsin

2023The harmless-error inquiry considers whether it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id., ¶46 (citing Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 ). ¶50 In reviewing a contention that the error was harmless, we consider evidence that was not affected by the error that occurred during the State's closing argument.

2019Error 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. Harvey , 2002 WI 93 , ¶46, 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (quoting Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 18 (1999) ).

2026For an error to be harmless, the party benefitting from the error must demonstrate that it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶49 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (citation omitted).

2026For an error to be harmless, the party benefitting from the error must demonstrate that it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶49 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (citation omitted).

2026An error is harmless if, based on the totality of the circumstances, the State can prove “‘beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury 2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version. 4 No. 2025AP1073-CR would have found the defendant guilty absent the error[.]’” Mayo, 301 Wis. 2d 642, ¶47 (quoted source omitted). ¶8 Spence argues that he has established plain error based on his assertions of prosecutorial misconduct.

2024To determine whether an error was harmless in this case, we consider whether the State can prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error[.]” Mayo, 301 Wis. 2d 642, ¶47 (citation omitted).

2026Under this rule, an error is harmless if the party that benefited from the error (here, 12 No. 2025AP495-CR the State) proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error … did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” and that the 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).

2026Under this rule, an error is harmless if the party that benefited from the error (here, 12 No. 2025AP495-CR the State) proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error … did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” and that the 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).

2025State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶44 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 . 9 No. 2024AP1210 ¶19 In determining whether evidence that should have been suppressed is harmless, this court must determine whether “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” See id., ¶45 (quoted source omitted).

2025State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶44 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 . 9 No. 2024AP1210 ¶19 In determining whether evidence that should have been suppressed is harmless, this court must determine whether “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” See id., ¶45 (quoted source omitted).

2013We have held that "in order to conclude that an error 'did not contribute to the verdict' within the meaning of Chapman , a court must be able to conclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.'" Id., ¶ 48 n.14 (quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 ).

2013We have held that "in order to conclude that an error 'did not contribute to the verdict' within the meaning of Chapman, a court must be able to conclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.'" Id., ¶48 n.14 (quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 ).

2026An 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. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, ¶68, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609 (quoting another source).

2026An 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. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, ¶68, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609 (quoting another source).

2008See, e.g., Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999); State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 ; State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n.14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 ." 23 The Neder/Harvey test for harmless error asks whether it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." 24 ¶ 44.

2008See, e.g., Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999); State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 ; State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n.14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 ." 23 The Neder/Harvey test for harmless error asks whether it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." 24 ¶ 44.

2026In other words, 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. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, ¶27 , 347 Wis. 2d 559 , 830 N.W.2d 681 (citation omitted).

2026In other words, 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. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, ¶27 , 347 Wis. 2d 559 , 830 N.W.2d 681 (citation omitted).

2026See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (“[C]ases should be decided on the narrowest possible ground[.]”). ¶27 For an error to be harmless, the party benefiting from it (here, the State) must demonstrate that it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶49 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (citation omitted).

2026See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (“[C]ases should be decided on the narrowest possible ground[.]”). ¶27 For an error to be harmless, the party benefiting from it (here, the State) must demonstrate that it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶49 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (citation omitted).

2013See Zelenka, 130 Wis. 2d at 48–52.

2013See Zelenka, 130 Wis. 2d at 48–52.

2022Harris, 307 Wis. 2d 555, ¶85 . “[I]n order for an 6 No. 2019AP1964-CR error to be deemed harmless, the party who benefited from the error must show that ‘it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶45 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 (citation omitted).

2022Id. ¶28 In the context of a discovery violation, our supreme court has stated that an error is harmless “if the beneficiary of the error proves ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained’” or, alternatively, if “it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶¶41-44 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 (citations omitted).

2026“The goal is to prevent the jury from hearing conjecture dressed up in the guise of expert opinion.” Id., ¶19. ¶30 Harmless-error analysis applies to the erroneous admission of evidence, Jorgensen, 310 Wis. 2d 138 , ¶22: such 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. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶49 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (citation omitted). ¶31 Fuller argues that “[t]he [trial] court ignored arguments and information provided by [Fuller] regarding the growing skepticism toward fire

2024But we agree with the State that the assumed error was harmless. ¶48 To determine whether an error is harmless, the State must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Id. (citation omitted).

2021The party benefitting from the error has the burden to prove that “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Id. (citation omitted).

2018"For an error to be harmless, the party who benefitted from error must show that 'it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.' " Id. (quoting State v. Martin , 2012 WI 96 , ¶ 45, 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 ).

2005See, e.g., State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 (if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have convicted absent the error then the error did not contribute to the verdict); State v. Carlson, 2003 WI 40, ¶ 46 , 261 Wis. 2d 97 , 661 N.W.2d 51 (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. Gary M.B., 2004 WI 33, ¶¶ 39, 42 , 270 Wis. 2d 62 , 676 N.W.2d 475 (Crooks, J., concurring) (same); State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶¶ 50-52 , 254 Wis. 2d 442

2005See, e.g., State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 (if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have convicted absent the error then the error did not contribute to the verdict); State v. Carlson, 2003 WI 40, ¶ 46 , 261 Wis. 2d 97 , 661 N.W.2d 51 (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. Gary M.B., 2004 WI 33, ¶¶ 39, 42 , 270 Wis. 2d 62 , 676 N.W.2d 475 (Crooks, J., concurring) (same); State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶¶ 50-52 , 254 Wis. 2d 442

2024When evaluating whether an error was harmless, a court inquires “whether it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error[.]’” State v. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, ¶18 , 288 Wis. 2d 1 , 709 N.W.2d 370 (citations omitted).

2024When evaluating whether an error was harmless, a court inquires “whether it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error[.]’” State v. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, ¶18 , 288 Wis. 2d 1 , 709 N.W.2d 370 (citations omitted).

2025Here, that question can be framed as whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found Cross guilty of Count 1— which related to the second strike—if the circuit court had properly instructed the jury on the defense of others and provocation. ¶47 Similarly, a new trial is warranted when a jury instruction was confusing or misleading if the defendant establishes “that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in a way that denied the defendant ‘a meaningful opportunity for consideration by the jury of his defense … to the detriment

2025Here, that question can be framed as whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found Cross guilty of Count 1— which related to the second strike—if the circuit court had properly instructed the jury on the defense of others and provocation. ¶47 Similarly, a new trial is warranted when a jury instruction was confusing or misleading if the defendant establishes “that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in a way that denied the defendant ‘a meaningful opportunity for consideration by the jury of his defense … to the detriment

2025To accomplish this task, we “ask whether it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” Id., ¶27 (citations omitted); see also State v. Williams, 2015 WI 75, ¶59 , 364 Wis. 2d 126 , 867 N.W.2d 736 (“To affirm a conviction based on an erroneous instruction, a court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury still would have convicted the defendant of the charge had the correct jury instruction been provided.”).

2025To accomplish this task, we “ask whether it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” Id., ¶27 (citations omitted); see also State v. Williams, 2015 WI 75, ¶59 , 364 Wis. 2d 126 , 867 N.W.2d 736 (“To affirm a conviction based on an erroneous instruction, a court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury still would have convicted the defendant of the charge had the correct jury instruction been provided.”).

2022STAT. § 901.03(1) (“[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected”); see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986) (holding that Confrontation Clause errors are subject to harmless error review); State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶49 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (a constitutional error is harmless if it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error”). 8 No. 2021AP510-CR ¶19 Here, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury w