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.
10 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 6 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. Mayogreen2 sentences2008See Mayo, 301 Wis.2d 642, ¶ 29 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . ¶ 23 If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. [4] Id. (citing King, 205 Wis.2d at 93 , 555 N.W.2d 189 ). 2008If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. 4 Id. (citing King, 205 Wis. 2d at 93 ). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gerrod R. Bellgreen1 sentence2026“This court independently reviews the record to determine if a new trial is warranted due to plain error.” State v. Nelson, 2021 WI App 2 , ¶46, 395 Wis. 2d 585 , 954 N.W.2d 11 (2020). ¶10 “Counsel is allowed considerable latitude in closing arguments, with discretion given to the trial court in determining the propriety of the argument.” Bell, 380 Wis. 2d 616, ¶39 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2026Miller, 341 Wis. 2d 737, ¶18 (citations omitted). ¶8 If an error occurred, the defendant bears the burden of showing that “the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, [before] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, ¶23 , 310 Wis. 2d 138 , 754 N.W.2d 77 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2023In that undertaking, we also invoke the traditional, three-step analytical framework established in State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771-72, 783 , 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998). 2023In that undertaking, we also invoke the traditional, three-step analytical framework established in State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771-72, 783 , 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2008See Mayo, 301 Wis.2d 642, ¶ 29 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . ¶ 23 If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. [4] Id. (citing King, 205 Wis.2d at 93 , 555 N.W.2d 189 ). 2008If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. 4 Id. (citing King, 205 Wis. 2d at 93 ). | 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. Jorgensen
green
2 sentences2026Miller, 341 Wis. 2d 737, ¶18 (citations omitted). ¶8 If an error occurred, the defendant bears the burden of showing that “the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, [before] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, ¶23 , 310 Wis. 2d 138 , 754 N.W.2d 77 . 2026Miller, 341 Wis. 2d 737, ¶18 (citations omitted). ¶8 If an error occurred, the defendant bears the burden of showing that “the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, [before] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, ¶23 , 310 Wis. 2d 138 , 754 N.W.2d 77 . | 6 | 2020–2026 |
State v. Thomas A. Nelson
green
2 sentences2021The party seeking application of the plain error doctrine “bears the burden in the first instance to ‘show[ ] that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial.’” State v. Nelson, 2021 WI App 2 , ¶46, 395 Wis. 2d 585 , 954 N.W.2d 11 (quoting Jorgensen, 310 Wis. 2d 138, ¶23 ). ¶37 In the instant case, J.J.K. has failed to meet his burden of establishing that any reliance on the hearsay information constitutes plain error that would allow J.J.K. to challenge the evidence despite his failure to object. 2021The party seeking application of the plain error doctrine “bears the burden in the first instance to ‘show[ ] that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial.’” State v. Nelson, 2021 WI App 2 , ¶46, 395 Wis. 2d 585 , 954 N.W.2d 11 (quoting Jorgensen, 310 Wis. 2d 138, ¶23 ). ¶37 In the instant case, J.J.K. has failed to meet his burden of establishing that any reliance on the hearsay information constitutes plain error that would allow J.J.K. to challenge the evidence despite his failure to object. | 2 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Daniel A. Griffin
neutral
1 sentence2023To support relief, the error must also be obvious and substantial; it is only if the defendant “shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial [that] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” Id. ¶31 Beyond this, we review the “circuit court’s admission of other-acts evidence for an erroneous exercise of discretion.” State v. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49, ¶19 , 388 Wis. 2d. 581, 933 N.W.2d 681 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Daniel A. Griffin
green
2 sentences2023To support relief, the error must also be obvious and substantial; it is only if the defendant “shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial [that] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” Id. ¶31 Beyond this, we review the “circuit court’s admission of other-acts evidence for an erroneous exercise of discretion.” State v. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49, ¶19 , 388 Wis. 2d. 581, 933 N.W.2d 681 . 2023To support relief, the error must also be obvious and substantial; it is only if the defendant “shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial [that] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” Id. ¶31 Beyond this, we review the “circuit court’s admission of other-acts evidence for an erroneous exercise of discretion.” State v. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49, ¶19 , 388 Wis. 2d. 581, 933 N.W.2d 681 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2020An error is harmless when “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, ¶43 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 (quoted source omitted). ¶25 Here, the circuit court determined that the error was fundamental, obvious, and substantial, but that the State met its burden to prove harmlessness: [T]he State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would still have found Mao guilty. 2020An error is harmless when “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, ¶43 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 (quoted source omitted). ¶25 Here, the circuit court determined that the error was fundamental, obvious, and substantial, but that the State met its burden to prove harmlessness: [T]he State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would still have found Mao guilty. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Vollmer v. Luety
green
2 sentences1997Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis. 2d 1 , 456 N.W.2d 797 (1990). 1997Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis. 2d 1 , 456 N.W.2d 797 (1990). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.