The Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules in a “Harmless Error” Case

The Facts and Legal Issues in State v. Barnes

Barnes was arrested and charged with delivering more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. An informant told police that Barnes was attempting to sell him meth. On that basis, police set up a controlled buy that resulted in Barnes’ arrest. During Barnes’ trial, the judge sanctioned the prosecution and did not allow the agent who participated in the controlled buy to testify. However, another officer testified about the officer’s presence during the controlled buy and even their observations.

Barnes’ attorney objected to this testimony. Seemingly, testifying about what someone else observed would be a classic example of hearsay. Nonetheless, the lower court overruled Barnes’ lawyer’s objection, and the appeals court affirmed the ruling.

Barnes appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness testifying against him was violated when the trial court admitted the officer’s testimony. According to Barnes, he should have been able to cross-examine the officer who was at the controlled buy and who was not allowed to testify himself at trial. Barnes argued that his conviction should be set aside since it was based on hearsay.

It Is Not Harmless Error When There Is Other Overwhelming Evidence

The Court affirmed the conviction, not even deciding the issue that involved hearsay. The Court focused on whether any error would have been harmless. Courts usually try to decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible, unless there is a serious legal issue that they need to address. 

Here, the Court looked at the rest of the evidence used against Barnes at trial. According to the Court, it was so overwhelming that Barnes would have been convicted anyway, making any violation of Barnes’ rights a harmless error. In order to be a harmful error, the guilty verdict must have been attributable to the error. The Court noted that the defense was weak and there were multiple other sources of incrimination evidence.

If anything, the takeaway from this case is that a criminal defendant needs a strong defense in their case. The fact that Barnes was not able to credibly and successfully challenge the evidence being used against him was a factor in the Court’s upholding his conviction in the face of an apparent violation of his rights. You need an attorney involved at the early stages of your case who can aggressively defend you if you choose to fight the charges against you.

Get Legal Help from a Eau Claire Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you have been charged with a drug crime, the Cohen Law Offices are here for you all the time. You can schedule a time to speak with an attorney when you call us at (715) 382-9447 or send us a message online.