Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 971 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 971.26 (2026)

Formal defects

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
971.26971.26 Formal defects. No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do not prejudice the defendant.
971.26 AnnotationThe fact that the information alleged the wrong date for the offense was not prejudicial when the complaint stated the correct date and there was no evidence that the defendant was misled. A charge of the violation of s. “946.42 (2) (a) (c)” was a technical defect of language when both paragraphs applied. Burkhalter v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 413, 190 N.W.2d 502 (1971).
971.26 AnnotationThe failure to cite in the information and certificate of conviction the correct statutory subsections violated was immaterial when the defendant could not show that the defendant was misled. Craig v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 489, 198 N.W.2d 609 (1972).
971.26 AnnotationA lack of prejudice to the defendant, notwithstanding technical defects in the information, was made patent by defense counsel’s concession that the defendant knew precisely what crime the defendant was charged with having committed, and the absence in the record of any such claim asserted during the case, which was vigorously tried. Clark v. State, 62 Wis. 2d 194, 214 N.W.2d 450 (1974).
971.26 AnnotationFailure to allege lack of consent was not a fatal jurisdictional defect of an information charging burglary. Schleiss v. State, 71 Wis. 2d 733, 239 N.W.2d 68 (1976).
971.26 AnnotationNo statute authorizes a clerk of court’s office to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a judgment of conviction. The circuit court, and not the clerk’s office, must determine the merits of a request for a change in the sentence portion of a written judgment because of an alleged clerical error. State v. Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, 98-2263.
971.26 AnnotationSection 971.08 (2), requiring vacation of judgment and permission to withdraw a plea in the event of improper notice of the consequences of the plea on immigration and naturalization, is subject to harmless error analysis under this section and s. 805.18. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, was objectively wrong because it failed to properly consider the harmless error statutes, this section and s. 805.18, and is thus overruled. The mandatory “shall” in s. 971.08 (2) did not control when both of the harmless error savings statutes also use the mandatory “shall” language. This section and ss. 805.18 and 971.08 (2) are most comprehensibly harmonized by applying harmless error analysis. All of the relevant statutes use “shall,” and, accordingly, none is “more mandatory” than any other. State v. Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104, 378 Wis. 2d 504, 904 N.W.2d 773, 15-2041.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104 (Wis. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 64× “08 (2) should be subject to harmless error analysis pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 971.26 and 805.18, and thus this court should overrule its decision in State v.”
State v. Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 12× “08 and Wis. Stat. § 971.26 [6] required an appellate court to employ a harmless-error analysis when a defendant sought to withdraw his plea based on a circuit court's failure to *85 comply with the dictates of § 971.”
State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 7× “The third statute is Wis. Stat. § 971.26 , a harmless-error statute providing that no proceeding shall be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form that do not prejudice the defendant.”
State v. Thompson, 2012 WI 90 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 8× “It turned instead to Wis. Stat. § 971.26 , which provides: No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do not prejudice the…”
State v. Prihoda, 2000 WI 123 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 5× “13 However, regardless of whether the defect prejudiced the defendant and whether Wis. Stat. § 971.26 protects the validity of the 1976 written judgment of conviction, the statute does not authorize a clerk's office, independent of the circuit court, to change a written judgment…”
State v. Issa, 519 N.W.2d 741 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “In this case, an ambiguity is created by the provisions of § 971.26, Stats.: Formal defects. No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of…”
State v. Leach, 370 N.W.2d 240 (Wis. 1985). · cites it 2× “(1) The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.”
State v. Bagnall, 212 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. 1973). · cites it 4× “The issue is settled by sec. 971.26, Stats., which provides: “No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do not prejudice the…”
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978). “3 See: Sec. 971.26, Stats., which provides: “No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do not prejudice the defendant.”
State v. Garcia, 2000 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “08 (l)(c) is rendered ambiguous when read in conjunction with Wis. Stat. § 971.26 which states: *311 Formal defects.”
Peterson v. State, 195 N.W.2d 837 (Wis. 1972). · cites it 2× “Sec. 971.26, Stats., provides: "Formal defects.”
State v. Gerard, 525 N.W.2d 718 (Wis. 1995). · cites it 2× “7 Section 971.26, Stats., Formal defects provides: No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do not prejudice the defendant.”
Show all 47 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.