COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 3, 2010 A.
John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT II |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christopher A. White,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before
Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., and
¶1 PER CURIAM. Christopher White appeals from a judgment convicting him of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and being an adjudged delinquent in possession of a firearm. On appeal, White argues that the circuit court misused its discretion when it admitted rebuttal evidence at his jury trial regarding his identity. We conclude that the error, if any, was harmless because there was ample evidence to connect White to and convict him of the crimes. We affirm the judgment.
¶2 In the criminal complaint arising from the shooting of Shaughn Ates, Ates identified White as his assailant and stated that White had the nickname “Payback.” At trial, Ates testified that on the night of the shooting, he and others were socializing with White’s former girlfriend in her apartment. Ates met White for the first time that night, and White introduced himself as “Payback.” Later in the evening, Ates and White argued, and White fled the premises. Subsequently, Ates found White in the apartment’s living room loading a shotgun. Ates fled to the street, heard shots and was hit twice. Ates did not see anyone else with a shotgun or argue with anyone else on the night of the shooting.
¶3 White testified that he did not have any disagreements with Ates that night, denied that he had a gun, and denied that he visited his former girlfriend’s apartment and shot Ates. White denied having the nickname of “Payback” and denied ever having identified himself to the police as “Payback.” On cross-examination, the State asked White if he denied that during a 2007 traffic stop, he identified himself as “Payback.” White denied that he did so.
¶4 After
the defense rested, the State offered rebuttal evidence from Detective
Alfredson. The detective intended to testify
that after Ates identified his assailant as “Payback,” the detective consulted
the
¶5 The detective testified in rebuttal that on the day after the
shooting, he consulted the
¶6 On appeal, White argues that the circuit court erroneously
admitted Alfredson’s rebuttal testimony because the testimony was inadmissible
hearsay. The State argues inter alia that any error was harmless. Whether an error was harmless presents a
question of law that we review de novo. State
v. Carnemolla, 229
¶7 Admitting hearsay evidence can be harmless error if there was no reasonable possibility that the
error contributed to White’s convictions.
State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, ¶49, 257
[T]he 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.
¶8 The State argues that even though White denied being known as “Payback,” denied arguing with Ates on the evening of the shooting, or shooting him, other witnesses placed White at the scene of the shooting with a shotgun, testified that he and Ates had argued, and that White was known as “Payback.” In the State’s view, the impact of Alfredson’s testimony that White was also known as “Payback” was limited.
¶9 We agree with the State that the rebuttal testimony was
harmless. The jury had to assess the
credibility of all of the witnesses to the events on the night of the shooting.
¶10 Permitting Alfredson’s testimony tying “Payback” to White was harmless error, if any error at all. A rational jury would have reached the same verdicts without the supposed error, and there was no reasonable probability that the error, if error it was, contributed to White’s convictions.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5 (2007-08).