Case Title: State v. Luther Williams

Citation: 2002 WI 118

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2002 WI 118 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-3065-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Luther Williams, III,  
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2002 WI 58 
Reported at:  253 Wis. 2d 99, 644 N.W.2d 919 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 24, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 118 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  00-3065-CR  
(L.C. No. 
99 CF 793 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Luther Williams, III,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 24, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  The State of Wisconsin moves the court to 
reconsider its opinion in State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 
58, 253 Wis. 2d 99, 644 N.W.2d 919.  Essentially, the State 
seeks clarification of the standard to be employed when 
reviewing a claim that inadmissible hearsay violated the 
defendant's right of confrontation.   
¶2 
To clarify the Williams opinion, we now modify ¶33 to 
read as follows: 
¶33 The threshold question in examining whether a 
defendant's right to confrontation is violated by the 
admission of hearsay evidence is whether that evidence 
is admissible under the rules of evidence. State v. 
Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210, 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982).  
No. 
00-3065-CR   
 
2 
 
If the evidence does not fit within a recognized 
hearsay exception, it must be excluded.  Id.  Only 
after it is established that the evidence fits within 
a 
recognized 
hearsay 
exception 
or 
was 
admitted 
erroneously does it become necessary to consider 
confrontation.  Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 
137 (1968); Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210.  Here, we 
determine that the lab report does not fit within the 
business 
records hearsay 
exception 
as 
the 
State 
asserts, but the admission was harmless error. Thus, 
we do not reach this confrontation issue because a 
determination of a Confrontation Clause violation does 
not result in automatic reversal, but rather is 
subject to harmless error analysis.  Delaware v. Van 
Arsdale, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986).  Even if Williams' 
right to confrontation was violated, the violation was 
harmless error. 
¶3 
The motion for reconsideration is denied without 
costs. 
 
No. 
00-3065-CR   
 
 
 
1