harmless error in Wisconsin

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 The harmless error inquiry asks whether "the error complained of has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking to reverse or set aside the judgment, or to secure a new trial." Wis. Stat. § 805.18 .

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 The harmless error inquiry asks whether "the error complained of has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking to reverse or set aside the judgment, or to secure a new trial." Wis. Stat. § 805.18 .

2024See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 510-12 (1983) (applying the harmless error rule); see also Hoyle, 406 Wis. 2d 373, ¶40 . ¶21 Under the harmless error rule, we consider “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 (1967).

2013See also United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 417 (7th Cir. 2005) ("An error is harmless only if it did not affect the district court's choice of sentence."). 57 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). 58 State v. Payette, 2008 WI App 106, ¶46 , 313 Wis. 2d 39 , 756 N.W.2d 423 ; State v. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, ¶22 , 258 Wis. 2d 889 , 655 N.W.2d 163 (other language withdrawn in Tiepelman, 291 Wis. 2d 179, ¶¶ 2, 31 ). 30 No. 2011AP685-CR prove that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the same result would have occurred absent the error.59 ¶72 The State argues that the error was harml

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.

2014Harmless error developed from the criticism that "[r]eversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it." Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 (quoting R.

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

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

2024In other words, Bodie has not demonstrated that his counsel’s failure to object to the prosecution’s remarks in its rebuttal argument was “so serious as to deprive [Bodie] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also State v. Sanchez, 201 Wis. 2d 219, 230-31 , 548 N.W.2d 69 (1996) (holding that the harmless error inquiry and the prejudice inquiry under Strickland are “substantively the same,” except for the party carrying the burden of proof (citation omitted)).

2018See State v. Carprue , 2004 WI 111 , ¶¶36-47, 274 Wis. 2d 656 , 683 N.W.2d 31 ("The absence of any objection warrants that we follow 'the normal procedure in criminal cases,' " which is to address the alleged error "within the rubric of the ineffective assistance of counsel." (quoted and cited sources omitted) ); see also Kimmelman v. Morrison , 477 U.S. 365 , 374-75, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (holding that in absence of objection, error should be analyzed under ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards, even when error is of constitutional dimension (citing Strickland v. Washin

2009In Fulminante , the Supreme Court explained that the "common thread" connecting cases in which a harmless error analysis may be applied is that "each involved a 'trial error' — error which occurred during the prosecution of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-08 .

2009However, "there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error." Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23, n. 8 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (right to counsel); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 , 78 S.Ct. 844 , 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) (coerced confessions); and Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) (right to an impartial judge)). ¶ 123 In Fulminante , the Supreme Court explained that the "common thread" connecting cases in which a harmless error analysi

2026See Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶30 , 246 Wis. 2d 67 , 629 N.W.2d 698 (“The appellate court must conduct a harmless error analysis to determine whether the error affected the substantial rights of the party.”) (citation modified).

2026See Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶30 , 246 Wis. 2d 67 , 629 N.W.2d 698 (“The appellate court must conduct a harmless error analysis to determine whether the error affected the substantial rights of the party.”) (citation modified).

2024We agree with the State’s harmless error argument. ¶40 “[E]rror 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. 3 During the discussion relating to Parchem’s prior convictions, the circuit court at one point appeared to indicate that another alternative would be for Parchem to testify that he had five prior convictions. 13 No. 2023AP28-CR Hunt, 2014 WI 102, ¶26 , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , 851 N.W.2d 434 (quoted source omitted).

2024We agree with the State’s harmless error argument. ¶40 “[E]rror 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. 3 During the discussion relating to Parchem’s prior convictions, the circuit court at one point appeared to indicate that another alternative would be for Parchem to testify that he had five prior convictions. 13 No. 2023AP28-CR Hunt, 2014 WI 102, ¶26 , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , 851 N.W.2d 434 (quoted source omitted).

2024STAT. § 767.407(1), (4) (in this context, a GAL is an attorney appointed by the circuit court to represent a minor child and to advocate for the child’s best interests). 6 No. 2024AP1162 require reversal, and may be harmless.7 See Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶27-32 (applying a harmless error analysis). ¶13 An error requires reversal only if it affects the “substantial rights of the party.” WIS.

2024Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶24, 26 . ¶27 Anticipating the County’s harmless error argument, Adam next argues that the record, including the testimony and other evidence presented at the dispositional hearing, failed to establish either ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence.

2020Then, in Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d at 368-71 , the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced that § 971.31(10) appeals are subject to a harmless error test.

2020See Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d at 370-71 . ¶42 The State asserts that there is “inconsistent” case law on whether the manifest injustice or the harmless error test applies, and it urges us to follow the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s “most recent pronouncement” on this subject.

2025See 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[.]”). 11 No. 2023AP1576 This opinion will not be published.

2025See 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[.]”). 11 No. 2023AP1576 This opinion will not be published.

1964Isenring v. Polacheck (1898), 101 Wis. 427 , 77 N. W. 708 , and such errors may be governed by the harmless-error rule, Pulaski v. State, ante, p. 450, 129 N. W. (2d) 204 .

1964Isenring v. Polacheck (1898), 101 Wis. 427 , 77 N. W. 708 , and such errors may be governed by the harmless-error rule, Pulaski v. State, ante, p. 450, 129 N. W. (2d) 204 .

2025“Evidence erroneously admitted is subject to the harmless error rule.” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶85 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 .

2025“Evidence erroneously admitted is subject to the harmless error rule.” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶85 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 .

2011This list illustrates the Court's "strong presumption that any other [constitutional] errors ... are subject to a harmless-error analysis." Neder, 527 U.S. at 8 (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986)); see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (adhering to the general rule that a constitutional error does not automatically require reversal and noting that the harmless error analysis applies to most constitutional errors). ¶ 12.

1987As stated by the United States Supreme Court: "The harmless error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 230 (1975), and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.” Rose v. Clark, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 3105-3106 (1986) quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1436-1437 (1986).

2025“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.” Id. ¶12 “Whether a particular error is structural and therefore not subject to a harmless error review is a question of law for our independent review.” State v. Nelson, 2014 WI 70, ¶18 , 355 Wis. 2d 722 , 849 N.W.2d 317 .

2025“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.” Id. ¶12 “Whether a particular error is structural and therefore not subject to a harmless error review is a question of law for our independent review.” State v. Nelson, 2014 WI 70, ¶18 , 355 Wis. 2d 722 , 849 N.W.2d 317 .

2025Accordingly, we must ask, under the harmless error analysis, whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams would have entered the plea even if he had appeared in person.6 See Anderson, 374 Wis. 2d 372, ¶57 ; State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶45 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 (stating that the burden is on the party who benefited from an error to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless).

2025Accordingly, we must ask, under the harmless error analysis, whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams would have entered the plea even if he had appeared in person.6 See Anderson, 374 Wis. 2d 372, ¶57 ; State v. Martin, 2012 WI 96, ¶45 , 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 (stating that the burden is on the party who benefited from an error to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless).

2018See State v. Bolstad , 124 Wis. 2d 576 , 589-90, 370 N.W.2d 257 (1985) ; see also State v. Anthony , 2015 WI 20 , ¶ 104, 361 Wis. 2d 116 , 860 N.W.2d 10 ; State v. Grant , 139 Wis. 2d 45 , 77, 406 N.W.2d 744 (1987) *907 (Day, J., concurring) (describing the underlying rationale of the harmless error test to be "eliminating prejudicial error but not becoming bogged down in endless formulas for determining harmless error."). ¶ 64 Factors four and five weigh in favor of Monahan, as the excluded GPS data would have bolstered Monahan's theory of defense that R.C. was driving.

2018See State v. Bolstad , 124 Wis. 2d 576 , 589-90, 370 N.W.2d 257 (1985) ; see also State v. Anthony , 2015 WI 20 , ¶ 104, 361 Wis. 2d 116 , 860 N.W.2d 10 ; State v. Grant , 139 Wis. 2d 45 , 77, 406 N.W.2d 744 (1987) *907 (Day, J., concurring) (describing the underlying rationale of the harmless error test to be "eliminating prejudicial error but not becoming bogged down in endless formulas for determining harmless error."). ¶ 64 Factors four and five weigh in favor of Monahan, as the excluded GPS data would have bolstered Monahan's theory of defense that R.C. was driving.

2021“An evidentiary error is subject to a harmless error analysis and requires reversal or a new trial only if the improper admission of evidence has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking relief.” State v. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25 , 41, 553 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1996). 9 Nos. 2021AP1278 2021AP1279 2021AP1280 Under this test, this court “will reverse only where there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the final result.” Id.; see also State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, ¶¶39, 90 , 385 Wis. 2d 418 , 922 N.W.2d 807 (Roggensack, C.J. and Ziegler, J., dissenting).

2021“An evidentiary error is subject to a harmless error analysis and requires reversal or a new trial only if the improper admission of evidence has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking relief.” State v. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25 , 41, 553 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1996). 9 Nos. 2021AP1278 2021AP1279 2021AP1280 Under this test, this court “will reverse only where there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the final result.” Id.; see also State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, ¶¶39, 90 , 385 Wis. 2d 418 , 922 N.W.2d 807 (Roggensack, C.J. and Ziegler, J., dissenting).

1987Kelly v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 303, 317, n. 3 , 249 N.W.2d 800 (1977) and concurring opinion at 321.’ Id. at 308 .” Pohl, 96 Wis. 2d at 311-312 .

1987Kelly v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 303, 317, n. 3 , 249 N.W.2d 800 (1977) and concurring opinion at 321.’ Id. at 308 .” Pohl, 96 Wis. 2d at 311-312 .

2026See State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, ¶35 , 383 Wis. 2d 100 , 913 N.W.2d 894 (in “our application of the harmless error rule,” we consider “the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence”). ¶47 The State’s evidence against Reeves was strong.

2026See State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, ¶35 , 383 Wis. 2d 100 , 913 N.W.2d 894 (in “our application of the harmless error rule,” we consider “the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence”). ¶47 The State’s evidence against Reeves was strong.

2019It is character evidence.” Given the lack of clarity as to the grounds for the motion, we choose to proceed under a harmless- error analysis. 4 No. 2018AP1469-CR ¶10 For an error to be harmless, the beneficiary of the error—here, the State—must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, ¶40 , 279 Wis. 2d 659 , 695 N.W.2d 259 (citation omitted).

2019It is character evidence.” Given the lack of clarity as to the grounds for the motion, we choose to proceed under a harmless- error analysis. 4 No. 2018AP1469-CR ¶10 For an error to be harmless, the beneficiary of the error—here, the State—must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, ¶40 , 279 Wis. 2d 659 , 695 N.W.2d 259 (citation omitted).

2014The alternative wording of the test is whether it was "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, ¶47 , 301 16 No. 2010AP1639-CR Wis. 2d 642, 734 N.W.2d 115 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 In conducting a harmless error analysis, a reviewing court will have greater confidence in the circuit court's decision when the evidence that was not subject to error strongly supported the outcome and when the erroneously excluded evidence was peripheral.

2014The alternative wording of the test is whether it was "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, ¶47 , 301 16 No. 2010AP1639-CR Wis. 2d 642, 734 N.W.2d 115 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶30 In conducting a harmless error analysis, a reviewing court will have greater confidence in the circuit court's decision when the evidence that was not subject to error strongly supported the outcome and when the erroneously excluded evidence was peripheral.

2025State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that this court may decline to address issues inadequately briefed or arguments unsupported by legal authority). 11 No. 2023AP2052 ¶26 We conclude that a harmless error analysis is inappropriate here because the “harmless-error rubric is incapable of reaching an error that affects the framework of the trial.” C.L.K., 385 Wis. 2d 418, ¶29 .

2021“An evidentiary error is subject to a harmless error analysis and requires reversal or a new trial only if the improper admission of evidence has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking relief.” State v. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25 , 41, 553 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1996). 9 Nos. 2021AP1278 2021AP1279 2021AP1280 Under this test, this court “will reverse only where there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the final result.” Id.; see also State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, ¶¶39, 90 , 385 Wis. 2d 418 , 922 N.W.2d 807 (Roggensack, C.J. and Ziegler, J., dissenting).

2021The State further argues that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless because Covington would have been convicted of the burglaries even if trial counsel had cross-examined Coward on the details of her plea offer. ¶39 For these purposes, we will assume without deciding that Covington’s opportunities to cross-examine Coward about her plea negotiations were improperly limited; nevertheless, we conclude that any violation constituted harmless error.7 When this court analyzes violations of the Confrontation Clause, we undertake a harmless error analysis, during which we consider seve

2021The State further argues that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless because Covington would have been convicted of the burglaries even if trial counsel had cross-examined Coward on the details of her plea offer. ¶39 For these purposes, we will assume without deciding that Covington’s opportunities to cross-examine Coward about her plea negotiations were improperly limited; nevertheless, we conclude that any violation constituted harmless error.7 When this court analyzes violations of the Confrontation Clause, we undertake a harmless error analysis, during which we consider seve