State v. Magett
| Decision Date | 27 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010AP1639–CR.,2010AP1639–CR. |
| Citation | 822 N.W.2d 736,344 Wis.2d 518,2012 WI App 118 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Erick O. MAGETT, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAppeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: George S. Curry, Judge. Affirmed.
Before LUNDSTEN, P.J., HIGGINBOTHAM and BLANCHARD, JJ.¶ 1HIGGINBOTHAM, J.
Erick O. Magett appeals a judgment of conviction on the ground that the circuit court denied him the right to present a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI). Magett pled not guilty and NGI to a battery by a prisoner charge. An NGI trial is a bifurcated proceeding, consisting of a guilt phase followed by a mental responsibility phase. After the first phase of the trial, the jury found Magett guilty of battery by a prisoner. The court inquired into what additional evidence Magett would present in the second phase of the trial, and Magett made an offer of proof. After Magett made his offer of proof, the court refused to proceed to the mental responsibility phase on the ground that no reasonable jury could find in Magett's favor based on the evidence that Magett would have presented during the second phase of the trial. We do not reach the issue of whether the court erred in refusing to hold the second phase of the trial because we conclude that any error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm.
¶ 2 On March 9, 2007, Magett, a prisoner confined in the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in Boscobel, Wisconsin, was charged with battery by a prisoner in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1) (2009–10).1 Magett pled not guilty and NGI. A trial was held before a jury.
¶ 3 The events giving rise to the battery charge against Magett are taken from the trial transcript. On January 20, 2007, Magett covered the camera in his prison cell and refused to leave the cell after Lieutenant Craig Tom ordered him to do so. Lieutenant Tom assembled a “use of force” team, consisting primarily of corrections officers, to extract Magett from his cell. After Magett refused to comply with further orders to come out of the cell, the officers entered. Upon opening the door, the officers noticed a wet, soapy substance on the floor, later discovered to be hand cream, which contributed to at least two officers slipping and falling.
¶ 4 A confrontation ensued in the cell. Lieutenant Tom testified that Magett was standing on a mattress with his shirt off and fists clenched in the air. Officers Thomas Taylor and Jeremy Caya testified that, as soon as they entered the cell, Magett punched them several times in the head. Although the officers wore protective equipment including face shields, Officer Caya was cut under his chin. Within a short time, the officers restrained Magett and removed him from the cell. To corroborate the officers' testimony, the State showed the jury a videotape of the confrontation.
¶ 5 Magett testified about the incident. He stated that he covered the camera in his cell to draw attention to the fact that he was being denied meals. He contended that he was refused meals because he did not assume what he claimed was the required position at meal time, that is, to sit cross-legged with his hands behind his head. Magett contended that he could not sit cross-legged because of back pain and a fractured pelvis.
¶ 6 Magett testified that once it was discovered that he had covered the camera in his cell, he was directed to put his hands through the cell door to be handcuffed. He refused, took off his shirt and waited for the officers to enter his cell. According to Magett, as soon as the officers entered his cell, they began to punch him and, in turn, he punched the officers to defend himself. Magett testified that an officer punched him in his groin area while another attempted to break his wrist and a third tried to choke him. However, Magett also testified that he could not recall part of the confrontation because he “blacked out.” According to Magett's testimony:
Magett asserted that he could not remember what happened after the officers entered the cell because he was “blacked out” and “just gone” and yet he claimed to recall that he stopped resisting the officers. Magett does not explain how he could recall that the officers punched him and that he stopped resisting the officers as soon as they “got a hold on to [him]” but could not recall how long he punched the officers.
¶ 7 On cross-examination, Magett admitted that, even before being denied meals, he was frustrated that the prison doctor and staff ignored his complaints and refused to provide medical treatment for his fractured pelvis. Magett acknowledged that, prior to the confrontation with the officers, he told the prison psychiatrist that it would be wrong for him to take out his frustrations on the officers. He further acknowledged that, prior to the confrontation, he wrote a letter to the prison warden explaining that if he continued to be denied medical treatment, somebody would “end up getting hurt.” After Magett testified, the defense rested.
¶ 8 As the jury deliberated, the court turned its focus to the potential mental responsibility phase in the event of a guilty verdict in the first phase of the trial. The court asked defense counsel what additional evidence would be presented to meet Magett's burden of proof in the second phase. Defense counsel informed the court that she would not be calling a court-appointed medical expert, Dr. Jonathan Lewis. Defense counsel also indicated that she would not call the defense's own medical expert to testify. However, defense counsel stated that Magett would testify that he “blacked out” and that “he was out of it” for part of the confrontation. In addition, defense counsel seemed to indicate she would reshow the jury the same videotape of the confrontation. Following this discussion, the jury returned a guilty verdict.
¶ 9 Based on defense counsel's representation of the evidence that would be presented in the mental responsibility phase of the trial, the court refused to proceed to the second phase. The court reasoned that, without medical expert testimony and based only on the evidence that Magett proffered, no reasonable jury could find that Magett suffered from a mental disease or defect that resulted in him lacking the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.15(1). On the basis that Magett would not be able to meet his burden of proof by the greater weight of the credible evidence, the court entered a judgment of conviction against Magett. Magett appeals.
¶ 10 Magett raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether a court may refuse to hold the mental responsibility phase of the trial on the basis that the defendant will not be able to meet the burden of proof; and (2) if the mental responsibility phase must be held, whether refusing to hold it in this case was harmless error.
¶ 11 On the first issue, Magett contends that the court erred in refusing to hold the second phase of the trial. Magett contends that there is no Wisconsin authority under which a circuit court may direct a verdict after the guilt phase of an NGI trial but before the mental responsibility phase. For that reason, Magett argues that the court erred by requiring him to bring forth credible evidence that he suffered from a mental disease or defect before holding the mental responsibility phase of the trial. The State responds that Wisconsin authority does not expressly prohibit a court from dismissing an NGI plea before the mental responsibility phase of the trial when there is no credible evidence in support of the defense. We do not reach this issue because we conclude that, assuming without deciding that the court erred in refusing to hold the second phase of the trial, the error was harmless under the unusual circumstances of this case.
¶ 12 Wisconsin's harmless error rule is codified in Wis. Stat. § 805.18 and applies to criminal proceedings pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 972.11(1). See State v. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, ¶ 8, 310 Wis.2d 248, 750 N.W.2d 500. To decide whether an error is harmless, we must determine whether the error affected the substantial rights of a party. Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶ 30, 246 Wis.2d 67, 629 N.W.2d 698;see alsoWis. Stat. § 805.18(2). An error affects the substantial rights of a party when there is “a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action.” Weborg v. Jenny, 2012 WI 67, ¶ 68, 341 Wis.2d 668, 816 N.W.2d 191 (citation omitted). “A reasonable possibility of a different outcome is a possibility sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Martindale, 246 Wis.2d 67, ¶ 32, 629 N.W.2d 698 (citation omitted). We review the entire record to determine whether an error contributed to the outcome of the action. State v. Patricia A.M., 176 Wis.2d 542, 556–57, 500 N.W.2d 289 (1993).
¶ 13 In Wisconsin, there are two...
To continue reading
Request your trial