“Error in admitting other acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Thoms, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1999). The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.
Rather, we conclude that, assuming that the Facebook post was impermissible other acts evidence, any error in admitting the evidence was harmless. See State v. Thorns, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Error in admitting other acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis.").
The harmless error test applies to claims that the circuit court erroneously admitted other acts evidence. State v. Thorns, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1999). “The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”
Id. Our "focus [is] on whether the error undermines our confidence in the case's outcome," State v. Thorns, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999), and in this case, we conclude that it does. ¶ 34.
¶27 Even if we were to accept Clark's argument that the circuit court erred, we would nevertheless conclude that any error was harmless given the strong evidence of guilt on the counts for which Clark was convicted. See State v. Thorns, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Error in admitting other[-]acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis."). An error is harmless if the party who benefited from the error "shows 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, ¶33, 383 Wis.2d 100, 913 N.W.2d 894 (citation omitted).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. ¶34 Even if we assume that the broken arm evidence was impermissible other-acts evidence, the error was harmless. See State v. Thoms, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Error in admitting other[-]acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis."). An error is harmless if the party who benefited from the error "shows 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'"
We also note that this is not a case in which the State abandoned the repeater allegation in the complaint for a different repeater allegation in the Information. See, e.g., State v. Thoms, 228 Wis.2d 868, 879, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999) (concluding "the State abandoned the complaint's repeater allegation when it identified a different repeater allegation in the [I]nformation"). As discussed earlier, the charging language in the complaint, which contained the incorrect description of Nelson's repeater offense, was identical to the charging language in the Information.
¶53 Although we have determined that the circuit court erroneously admitted evidence of the June 2017 hit and run, that does not necessarily mean that a new trial is required. "Error in admitting other acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis." State v. Thoms, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999). The burden of proving that an error is harmless is on the beneficiary of the error-here, the State.
¶ 10 It is well established that, “[e]rror in admitting other acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Thoms, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1999). An error is harmless if the beneficiary, here the State, proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”
¶ 20 “Error in admitting other acts evidence is subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Thoms, 228 Wis.2d 868, 873, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1999). The test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the conviction.