test for harmless error in Wisconsin

2013The test for harmless error is "whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the conviction." Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d at 543 .

2004NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). [2] The test for harmless error is "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).

2025See State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶40 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (the test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome).

2025See State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶40 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 (the test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome).

2021“In a guilty plea situation following the denial of a motion to suppress, the test for harmless error on appeal is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of the disputed evidence contributed to the conviction.” Semrau, 233 Wis. 2d 508, ¶22 ; see also Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d at 370-71 . 23

2015See Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d at 368-69 ; see also State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 544-45 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985). ¶ 94.

2008This court has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of ways. 20 The United States Supreme Court set forth a test for harmless error in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987 (1967).

2006The court has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of ways. 67 The United States Supreme Court set forth a test for harmless error in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987 (1967).

2023See Hannemann, 282 Wis. 2d 664, ¶58 (“the test for harmless error is not ‘a sufficiency of the evidence standard’” (quoted source omitted)).

2023See Hannemann, 282 Wis. 2d 664, ¶58 (“the test for harmless error is not ‘a sufficiency of the evidence standard’” (quoted source omitted)).

1980The test for harmless error of nonconstitutional dimensions was recently stated in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis.2d 302, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904, 907-08 (1979), quoting Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482, 490 (1973) : “The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

1980The test for harmless error of nonconstitutional dimensions was recently stated in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis.2d 302, 308 , 284 N.W.2d 904, 907-08 (1979), quoting Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482, 490 (1973) : “The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

2021“The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶50 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 .

2021“The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶50 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 .

2021“In a guilty plea situation following the denial of a motion to suppress, the test for harmless error on appeal is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of the disputed evidence contributed to the conviction.” Semrau, 233 Wis. 2d 508, ¶22 ; see also Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d at 370-71 . 23

2020“In a guilty plea situation following the denial of a motion to suppress, the test for harmless error on appeal is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of the disputed evidence contributed to the conviction.” State v. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, ¶22 , 233 Wis. 2d 508 , 608 N.W.2d 376 .

2014To make that determination, "a court must be able to conclude 'beyond a 3 No. 2010AP3016-CR.awb reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.'" Id. (quoting Harvey, 254 Wis. 2d 442 , ¶48 n.14). ¶98 However, in a guilty plea situation following the denial of a motion to suppress, the test for harmless error on appeal is whether there is a reasonable probability that the erroneous admission of the disputed evidence contributed to the conviction.

2005Some justices suggest that the test for harmless error set forth in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999), is an "alternative wording" of the harmless-error test in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), majority op., ¶ 60 n.9, and would like to apply the test for harmless error as set forth in Chapman .

1991State v. Evers, 139 Wis. 2d 424, 446 , 407 N.W.2d 256, 266 (1987).

1991State v. Evers, 139 Wis. 2d 424, 446 , 407 N.W.2d 256, 266 (1987).

1983This court held in Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 357 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), that the test for harmless error should be based on “reasonable probabilities.” (Emphasis added.) Because the untainted evidence against the defendant, considered in the context of all the evidence, was overwhelming and because the improperly admitted evidence was merely cumulative, the error here was harmless under either definition of “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

1983This court held in Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 357 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), that the test for harmless error should be based on “reasonable probabilities.” (Emphasis added.) Because the untainted evidence against the defendant, considered in the context of all the evidence, was overwhelming and because the improperly admitted evidence was merely cumulative, the error here was harmless under either definition of “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

2023Rather, in light of the factors above, I conclude that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the impermissible introduction of the contents of the emails “contributed to the outcome” of trial. ¶39 Without developing an argument based on it, the County notes in passing that our supreme court has stated that “‘[t]he purpose of the best evidence rule is to prevent fraud upon the trier of fact, depriving it of the benefit of the original document.’” See Giacomantonio, 371 Wis. 2d 452, ¶32 (quoting Grunwaldt v. Wisconsin State Highway Comm’n, 21 Wis. 2d 153, 163 , 124 N.W.2d 13 (1963)).

2014See Deadwiller, 2013 WI 75, ¶ 41 , 350 Wis. 2d at 168 , 834 N.W.2d at 377 ("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.'") (one set of internal question marks and quoted source omitted); Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 50 , 253 Wis. 2d at 124 , 644 N.W.2d at 931 ("The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

2014See Deadwiller, 2013 WI 75, ¶ 41 , 350 Wis. 2d at 168 , 834 N.W.2d at 377 ("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.'") (one set of internal question marks and quoted source omitted); Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 50 , 253 Wis. 2d at 124 , 644 N.W.2d at 931 ("The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.

2008Under Chapman , the 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." 21 In State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶¶ 27, 30-31, 33, 34 , 272 Wis. 2d 80 , 680 N.W.2d 737 , a case involving a request to withdraw a guilty plea based on the State's violation of the criminal discovery statute, the court declared that the standard is whether the State's nondisclosure of the evidence sufficiently undermines the court's confidence in the outcome of the judicial proceeding. 22 *579 ¶ 43.

2008Under Chapman , the 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." 21 In State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶¶ 27, 30-31, 33, 34 , 272 Wis. 2d 80 , 680 N.W.2d 737 , a case involving a request to withdraw a guilty plea based on the State's violation of the criminal discovery statute, the court declared that the standard is whether the State's nondisclosure of the evidence sufficiently undermines the court's confidence in the outcome of the judicial proceeding. 22 *579 ¶ 43.

2007See Hunt, 263 Wis. 2d 1, ¶77 .

2005The test for harmless error as set forth in Neder has been applied to Confrontation Clause violations by this court in State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶¶ 28-29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and more recently by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004).

2005The test for harmless error as set forth in Neder has been applied to Confrontation Clause violations by this court in State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶¶ 28-29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and more recently by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004).