frequency error in Wisconsin

51 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 19 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.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Mayogreen wis · 2007 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2008–2024 2 sentences 2008These include: the frequency of the error, the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence, whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence, the nature of the defense, the nature of the State's case, and the overall strength of the State's case. 257 Id., 301 Wis. 2d 642, ¶ 48 (citing State v. Hale, 2005 WI 7, ¶ 61 , 277 Wis. 2d 593 , 691 N.W.2d 637 ). ¶ 43. 2008These include: the frequency of the error, the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence, whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence, the nature of the defense, the nature of the State's case, and the overall strength of the State's case. 257 Id., 301 Wis. 2d 642, ¶ 48 (citing State v. Hale, 2005 WI 7, ¶ 61 , 277 Wis. 2d 593 , 691 N.W.2d 637 ). ¶ 43.	3	7
State v. Jorgensengreen wis · 2008 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2009–2024 2 sentences 2024Id. (citing Mayo, 301 Wis. 2d 642, ¶48 ). 2024Our supreme court has identified several factors to assist in making this determination: (1) the frequency of the error; (2) the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence; (4) whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence; (5) the nature of the defense; (6) the nature of the State’s case; and (7) the overall strength of the State’s case. 11 WISCONSIN STAT. § 901.03(1)(a) provides that “[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evid	3	7
State v. Martingreen wis · 2012 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2014–2023 2 sentences 2023Other considerations include "the frequency of the error" and the "nature of the defense[.]" Id. (quoting Martin, 343 Wis. 2d 278, ¶46 ). ¶30 The evidence against Barnes was overwhelming. 2023Other considerations include "the frequency of the error" and the "nature of the defense[.]" Id. (quoting Martin, 343 Wis. 2d 278, ¶46 ). ¶30 The evidence against Barnes was overwhelming.	3	7
State v. Kyle Lee Monahangreen wis · 2018 · cited in 5 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2019–2026 2 sentences 2026See Monahan, 383 Wis. 2d 100, ¶35 (relevant to the harmless error analysis is “the frequency of the error”). 2023Those factors include the “the frequency of the error;” the importance of the evidence to the State’s case; “the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously included … evidence;” the nature of both the defense and the State’s case; and “the overall strength of the State’s case.” Id. ¶40 Here, our primary consideration is the overall strength of the State’s case.	1	5
State v. Normangreen wis · 2003 · cited in 5 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2005–2023 2 sentences 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	1	5
State v. Billingsgreen wis · 1983 · cited in 5 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1983–2006 2 sentences 2006Considering all the factors in State v. Billings, 110 Wis. 2d 661, 668-70 , 329 N.W.2d 192 (1983), such as the frequency of the error, the nature of the State's case, the defense presented at trial, whether the evidence was duplicative of other evidence, and any other factors that may help reveal whether the admission of evidence was prejudicial, 12 it is clear that the in-court identifications were chained at trial to the out-of-court identifications, which should have been suppressed. ¶ 64. 2006Considering all the factors in State v. Billings, 110 Wis. 2d 661, 668-70 , 329 N.W.2d 192 (1983), such as the frequency of the error, the nature of the State's case, the defense presented at trial, whether the evidence was duplicative of other evidence, and any other factors that may help reveal whether the admission of evidence was prejudicial, 12 it is clear that the in-court identifications were chained at trial to the out-of-court identifications, which should have been suppressed. ¶ 64.	1	5
Rudolph v. Stategreen wis · 1977 · cited in 4 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1981–1988 2 sentences 1981A finding of harmless error requires the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis.2d 435 , 254 N.W.2d 471 (1977); State v. Jennaro, 76 Wis.2d 499, 509 , 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977). 151 The factors relevant to determining whether a constitutional error is harmless were set out in Rudolph, supra, 78 Wis.2d at 443 , as follows: . . (1) the frequency of the error, (2) the nature of the state’s evidence against the defendant, and (3) the nature of the defense.” Under these tests we hol 1981A finding of harmless error requires the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis.2d 435 , 254 N.W.2d 471 (1977); State v. Jennaro, 76 Wis.2d 499, 509 , 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977). 151 The factors relevant to determining whether a constitutional error is harmless were set out in Rudolph, supra, 78 Wis.2d at 443 , as follows: . . (1) the frequency of the error, (2) the nature of the state’s evidence against the defendant, and (3) the nature of the defense.” Under these tests we hol	1	4
State v. Harrisgreen wis · 2008 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2018–2022 2 sentences 2022We also consider “the frequency of the error” and “whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence.” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶45 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 . ¶33 Based on our review of these factors, we conclude that Carol’s error in testifying that Ridley previously went to prison did not contribute to the jury’s guilty verdict. 2022We also consider “the frequency of the error” and “whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence.” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶45 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 . ¶33 Based on our review of these factors, we conclude that Carol’s error in testifying that Ridley previously went to prison did not contribute to the jury’s guilty verdict.	1	3
State v. Fenclgreen wis · 1982 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1983–1988 2 sentences 1988The unconstitutional references ... cannot be viewed in a vacuum but, rather, must be examined within the entire context of the trial.” Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 238 , 325 N.W.2d at 711-712 (citations omitted). 1988The unconstitutional references ... cannot be viewed in a vacuum but, rather, must be examined within the entire context of the trial.” Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 238 , 325 N.W.2d at 711-712 (citations omitted).	1	3
State v. Richard Lavon Deadwillergreen wis · 2013 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021 2 sentences 2021Id. (citation omitted). ¶18 Assuming it was error to admit S.B.’s prior trial testimony, we conclude that any error was harmless. 2019See id. (citation omitted). ¶34 We conclude that the trial record as a whole establishes that the jury would have found Lee guilty even if the erroneous other-acts/improper hearsay evidence had not been admitted. ¶35 The crux of Lee’s defense at trial was that he was not present at the daycare during its operation hours.	1	2
State v. Stuartgreen wis · 2005 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2010–2019 2 sentences 2019See State v. Stuart , 2005 WI 47 , ¶ 41, 279 Wis. 2d 659 , 695 N.W.2d 259 . ¶66 The evidence presented against Reinwand at trial included nontestimonial statements that Meister made to 14 other individuals regarding threats that Reinwand had made and Meister's fear that Reinwand was going to harm or kill him. 2019See State v. Stuart , 2005 WI 47 , ¶ 41, 279 Wis. 2d 659 , 695 N.W.2d 259 . ¶66 The evidence presented against Reinwand at trial included nontestimonial statements that Meister made to 14 other individuals regarding threats that Reinwand had made and Meister's fear that Reinwand was going to harm or kill him.	1	2
State v. Dyessgreen wis · 1985 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985). 2023See State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 543 , 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).	1	1
Hannemann v. Boysongreen wis · 2005 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 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	1	1
State v. James R. Huntgreen wis · 2014 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018State v. Martin , 2012 WI 96 , ¶ 46, 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 ; State v. Norman , 2003 WI 72 , ¶ 48, 262 Wis. 2d 506 , 664 N.W.2d 97 ; see also Hunt , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , ¶ 27, 851 N.W.2d 434 ; State v. Nelson , 2014 WI 70 , ¶ 46, 355 Wis. 2d 722 , 849 N.W.2d 317 . 2018State v. Martin , 2012 WI 96 , ¶ 46, 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 ; State v. Norman , 2003 WI 72 , ¶ 48, 262 Wis. 2d 506 , 664 N.W.2d 97 ; see also Hunt , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , ¶ 27, 851 N.W.2d 434 ; State v. Nelson , 2014 WI 70 , ¶ 46, 355 Wis. 2d 722 , 849 N.W.2d 317 .	1	1
Neder v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1999 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008In order to conclude that an error was harmless, the beneficiary of the error in a criminal trial must prove that it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Harvey, 254 Wis. 2d 442, ¶49 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999)). ¶ 86 In applying the harmless error test, we examine the totality of the circumstances of each individual case, including but not limited to: the frequency of the error, the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contrad	1	1
State v. Harveygreen wis · 2002 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008In order to conclude that an error was harmless, the beneficiary of the error in a criminal trial must prove that it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Harvey, 254 Wis. 2d 442, ¶49 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999)). ¶ 86 In applying the harmless error test, we examine the totality of the circumstances of each individual case, including but not limited to: the frequency of the error, the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contrad	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hale green wis · 2005 2 sentences 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	7	2005–2021
State v. Angelica C. Nelson green wis · 2014 2 sentences 2020This analysis “presents a question of law for our independent review.” Nelson, 355 Wis. 2d 722, ¶18 . ¶29 To “aid” in a harmless error analysis, our supreme court set forth a “non-exhaustive list of factors” for consideration: the frequency of the error; the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence; the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence; whether the erroneously admitted evidence duplicates untainted evidence; the nature of the defense; the nature of the State’s case; and the overall strength of the State’s case. 2018State v. Martin , 2012 WI 96 , ¶ 46, 343 Wis. 2d 278 , 816 N.W.2d 270 ; State v. Norman , 2003 WI 72 , ¶ 48, 262 Wis. 2d 506 , 664 N.W.2d 97 ; see also Hunt , 360 Wis. 2d 576 , ¶ 27, 851 N.W.2d 434 ; State v. Nelson , 2014 WI 70 , ¶ 46, 355 Wis. 2d 722 , 849 N.W.2d 317 .	2	2018–2020
State v. Garland Dean Barnes neutral wis · 2023 1 sentence 2024Other considerations include ‘the frequency of the error’ and the ‘nature of the defense[.]’” State v. Barnes, 2023 WI 45 , ¶29, 407 Wis. 2d 652 , 990 N.W.2d 759 (alteration in original; citations omitted).	1	2024–2024
Matter of Mental Condition of WRB green wisctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2023STAT. § 51.20(am), see State v. W.R.B., 140 Wis. 2d 347 , 350-51, 411 N.W.2d 142 (Ct. App. 1987), and the analysis in S.Y. has been persuasively relied on by this court in the context of recommitment proceedings, Rusk County v. A.A., Nos. 2019AP839, 2020AP1580, unpublished slip op. ¶¶34-39 (WI App July 20, 2021), 2021WL4256189. 17 No. 2022AP2146 ¶40 As identified by the County, the following factors “assist in determining whether an error is harmless”: (1) the frequency of the error; (2) the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating 2023STAT. § 51.20(am), see State v. W.R.B., 140 Wis. 2d 347 , 350-51, 411 N.W.2d 142 (Ct. App. 1987), and the analysis in S.Y. has been persuasively relied on by this court in the context of recommitment proceedings, Rusk County v. A.A., Nos. 2019AP839, 2020AP1580, unpublished slip op. ¶¶34-39 (WI App July 20, 2021), 2021WL4256189. 17 No. 2022AP2146 ¶40 As identified by the County, the following factors “assist in determining whether an error is harmless”: (1) the frequency of the error; (2) the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating	1	2023–2023
State v. Fivecoats green orctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2020State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, ¶35 , 383 Wis. 2d 100 , 913 N.W.2d 894 . 5 No. 2018AP2353-CR ¶12 In support of his claim that exclusion of the “gait evidence” was not harmless, Lipscomb cites State v. Fivecoats, 284 P.3d 1225 (Or.	1	2020–2020
State v. Monje green wis · 1982 1 sentence 1983Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 238 , 325 N.W.2d at 711 .	1	1983–1983
State v. Jennaro green wis · 1977 2 sentences 1981A finding of harmless error requires the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis.2d 435 , 254 N.W.2d 471 (1977); State v. Jennaro, 76 Wis.2d 499, 509 , 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977). 151 The factors relevant to determining whether a constitutional error is harmless were set out in Rudolph, supra, 78 Wis.2d at 443 , as follows: . . (1) the frequency of the error, (2) the nature of the state’s evidence against the defendant, and (3) the nature of the defense.” Under these tests we hol 1981A finding of harmless error requires the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis.2d 435 , 254 N.W.2d 471 (1977); State v. Jennaro, 76 Wis.2d 499, 509 , 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977). 151 The factors relevant to determining whether a constitutional error is harmless were set out in Rudolph, supra, 78 Wis.2d at 443 , as follows: . . (1) the frequency of the error, (2) the nature of the state’s evidence against the defendant, and (3) the nature of the defense.” Under these tests we hol	1	1981–1981
Chapman v. California red scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1981A finding of harmless error requires the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis.2d 435 , 254 N.W.2d 471 (1977); State v. Jennaro, 76 Wis.2d 499, 509 , 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977). 151 The factors relevant to determining whether a constitutional error is harmless were set out in Rudolph, supra, 78 Wis.2d at 443 , as follows: . . (1) the frequency of the error, (2) the nature of the state’s evidence against the defendant, and (3) the nature of the defense.” Under these tests we hol 1981A finding of harmless error requires the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis.2d 435 , 254 N.W.2d 471 (1977); State v. Jennaro, 76 Wis.2d 499, 509 , 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977). 151 The factors relevant to determining whether a constitutional error is harmless were set out in Rudolph, supra, 78 Wis.2d at 443 , as follows: . . (1) the frequency of the error, (2) the nature of the state’s evidence against the defendant, and (3) the nature of the defense.” Under these tests we hol	1	1981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (22) WI § Wis. Stat. § 904.04 (15) WI § Wis. Stat. § 901.03 (13) WI § Wis. Stat. § 904.01 (13) WI § Wis. Stat. § 805.18 (8) WI § Wis. Stat. § 904.03 (8) WI § Wis. Stat. § 972.11 (8) WI § Wis. Stat. § 752.35 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 908.01 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 908.045 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 752.31 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 904.02 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

WI 51 (1981–2026) NJ 13 (1992–2007) CA 5 (1979–2023) UT 5 (2019–2025) TX 5 (1998–2023) CO 4 (2014–2017) NH 4 (2023–2025) AK 2 (1995–2010) FL 2 (1996–2001) CT 2 (1996–1997) PA 2 (2013–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check