State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 06 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006AP882-CR.,2006AP882-CR. |
| Citation | 745 N.W.2d 397,2008 WI 15 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Ronell E. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Ralph J. Sczygelski and Sczygelski low Firm, LLC, Manitowoc, and oral argument by Ralph J. Sczygelski.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Anne Murphy, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.
The defendant, Ronell E. Harris, seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals1 affirming a judgment and order of the Circuit Court for Sheboygan County, Terence T. Bourke, Judge. The circuit court convicted the defendant of possession with the intent to deliver more than 40 grams of cocaine or cocaine base contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1m)(cm)4 (2003-04).2 The circuit court denied the defendant's postconviction motion seeking a new trial.
¶ 2 Five issues are presented on review to determine whether the circuit court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial:
I. Did the State violate Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) () or the defendant's constitutional right to due process by failing to disclose timely written police reports stating that law enforcement officers unsuccessfully attempted to obtain identifiable fingerprints from a plastic baggie containing cocaine allegedly belonging to the defendant? If so, was the defendant prejudiced by the State's statutory violation and the admission of evidence or testimony regarding fingerprint evidence?
II. Did the State violate Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) () by failing to disclose timely the defendant's request to put on a particular pair of pants? If so, was the defendant prejudiced by the violation?
III. Did the circuit court err in failing to strike evidence of the defendant's criminal history after the State's witness referred to a document as "a court bail bond, some kind of court paperwork for [the defendant]" and then a "recognizance of bond in a criminal case . . . a posting of $1,000 by the defendant"? If so, was the error prejudicial?
IV. If the State violated Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) (), did the circuit court err in failing to sanction the State for the violation?
V. Are the errors, when viewed cumulatively, prejudicial errors warranting a new trial?
¶ 3 We conclude as follows:
I. The State violated Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) () by failing to disclose timely the police reports. The defendant's Brady due process rights were not violated.3 The State's statutory violation and the admission of the evidence were not prejudicial.
II. The State violated Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) () by failing to disclose timely the defendant's alleged statement asking for the pants that he put on. The circuit court excluded the evidence. The State's statutory violation was not prejudicial.
III. The circuit court erred in failing to strike evidence of the defendant's criminal history. The admission of the evidence was not prejudicial error.
IV. The circuit court erred in failing to sanction the State for violating Wis. Stat. § 971.23 (). The error was not prejudicial.
V. The errors, when viewed cumulatively, are not prejudicial errors warranting a new trial.
¶ 4 For the reasons set forth, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's judgment of conviction and the circuit court's order denying the defendant's postconviction motion for a new trial.
¶ 5 We briefly summarize the facts relating to the defendant's trial, conviction, and postconviction motion for a new trial and shall detail the facts further in the parts of the opinion discussing the legal issues presented.
¶ 6 The case that the State presented at the defendant's jury trial on the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver consisted essentially of the following evidence:
• While law enforcement officers were executing a search want in a Sheboygan apartment, they discovered the defendant on a sofa in the residence;
• The officers discovered a plastic baggie containing a substance later determined to be 62 grams of crack cocaine (the contraband alleged to be possessed by the defendant) in the pocket of a green denim jacket that was hanging on a closet door in a bedroom of the apartment;
• The officers discovered a duffel bag underneath the green denim jacket, and the defendant admitted that the duffel bag was his;
• The officers discovered two documents on top of the duffel bag that bore the defendant's name;
• The duffel bag contained plastic baggies (although no contraband);
• Shortly after the officers entered the apartment, the defendant put on a pair of green denim pants without any suggestion from the officers to do so;
• The green denim pants that the defendant put on had been lying near the defendant before he put them on;
• The green denim pants that the defendant put on matched, in color, size, and brand, the jacket containing the plastic baggie of cocaine;
• Both the pants and the matching jacket were an appropriate size for the defendant;
• Although other persons were known to live in the apartment, none was similar in size to the defendant;
• The officers discovered $615.00 inside" the green denim pants put on by the defendant; and
• Law enforcement officers discovered a wallet in the apartment containing the defendant's photo identification card.
¶ 7 At his trial, the defendant argued that the State's case consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence and adduced the following evidence in his favor:
• Multiple other persons in the apartment were known to be involved in drugs; and • A document with the name of one of those persons, was discovered in the same bedroom in which law enforcement officers discovered the cocaine alleged to belong to the defendant.
¶ 8 After the State filed an information against him, the defendant moved for discovery from the State. The defendant's motion demanded that the State disclose, among other items:
• "A written summary of all oral statements of the defendant that the state plans to use at trial and the names of witnesses to the defendant's oral statements";
• "Any and all relevant written or recorded statements of a witness" that the State intends to call at trial; and
• "Any exculpatory evidence . . . including but not limited to . . . [a]ll evidence and/or other information that would tend to negate the guilt of the defendant . . . [and] [a]ll evidence and/or other information that would tend to affect the weight or credibility of the evidence against the defendant."
¶ 9 The defendant's trial lasted one day. The jury found the defendant guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver.
¶ 10 Before sentencing, the defendant moved for a new trial based on the State's failure to disclose timely both exculpatory evidence and statements made by the defendant that the State planned to introduce at trial.
¶ 11 The circuit court sentenced the defendant to five years' confinement and five years' extended supervision.
¶ 12 After sentencing, the defendant moved for postconviction relief, again requesting a new trial, based on the prosecutor's withholding relevant information and on co-actors' being sentenced less harshly. The, circuit court again denied the defendant's motion for a new trial.
¶ 13 We first consider whether the State violated Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(e) and (h) () by failing to disclose timely the written police reports stating that law enforcement officers unsuccessfully attempted to obtain identifiable fingerprints from a plastic baggie containing cocaine allegedly belonging to the defendant. We then consider whether any violation of the discovery statute or admission of the fingerprint evidence resulted in prejudicial error.
¶ 14 The Criminal Discovery Statute. Wisconsin Stat. § 971.23(1)(e) and (h) provide in relevant part that the district attorney shall, within a reasonable time before trial, disclose to the defendant any relevant written or recorded statements of a named witness, the results of any scientific test, and any exculpatory evidence. These provisions state as follows;
Upon demand, the district attorney shall, within a reasonable time before trial, disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney and permit the defendant or his or her attorney to inspect and copy or photograph all of the following materials and information, if it is within the possession, custody or control of the state:
. . . .
(e) Any.relevant written or recorded statements of a witness named on a list under par. (d), including any videotaped oral statement of a child under s. 908.08, any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case or, if an expert does not prepare a report or statement, a written summary of the expert's findings or the subject matter of his or her testimony, and the results of any physical or mental examination scientific test, experiment or comparison that the district attorney intends to offer in evidence at trial.
. . . .
(h) Any exculpatory evidence.
¶ 15 Standard of Review. The interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. 971.23(1)(e) and (h) to a given set of facts, as in the instant case, presents a question of law that we review independently of the circuit court and court of appeals but benefiting from their analyses.4 If this court concludes that the State violated its statutory discovery obligation, this court must then determine whether the State has shown good cause for the violation and, if not, whether the defendant was prejudiced by the evidence or testimony.5 These issues are also questions of law for this court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Straszkowski
... ... We determine whether there has been harmless error by looking at the totality of the circumstances. State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶ 48, ___ Wis.2d ___, 745 N.W.2d 397. We have previously applied the harmless error test to review denied requests to withdraw guilty pleas, explaining that in such cases, the standard is whether the alleged error "sufficiently undermines the court's confidence in the outcome of the ... ...
-
State Of Wis. v. Sveum, 2008AP658-CR.
... ... Stat. § 968.18. 10. It is permissible to aggregate errors to determine their overall impact. Several individually harmless errors may cumulatively affect the defendant's substantial rights ... State v. Harris , 2008 WI 15, ¶ 110, 307 Wis.2d 555, 745 N.W.2d 397; ... State v. Thiel , 2003 WI 111, ¶ 59, 264 Wis.2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305; ... Alvarez v. Boyd , 225 F.3d 820, 824 (7th Cir.2000); ... United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462, 1469 (10th Cir.1990); ... United States v. Wallace , 848 ... ...
-
State v. Hunt
... ... Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31, ¶ 22, 339 Wis.2d 493, 811 N.W.2d 756). ¶ 21 A circuit court's erroneous exercise of discretion in admitting evidence is subject to the harmless error rule. State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶ 85, 307 Wis.2d 555, 745 N.W.2d 397. Whether the error was harmless presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Jackson, 2014 WI 4, ¶ 44, 352 Wis.2d 249, 841 N.W.2d 791. ¶ 22 This case also requires us to determine whether Hunt's trial ... ...
- State v. Mulhern