Case Name: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Stephen L. GRANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1987-06-11
Citations: 139 Wis. 2d 45
Docket Number: No. 85-1137-CR
Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Stephen L. GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: I am authorized to state that JUSTICE BA-BLITCH joins in this concurrence.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 139
Pages: 45–90

Head Matter:
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Stephen L. GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court
No. 85-1137-CR.
Argued November 25, 1986.
Decided June 11, 1987.
(Also reported in 406 N.W.2d 744.)
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Michael R. Klos, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was Bronson C. La Follette, attorney general.
For the defendant-appellant there was a brief by Mark J. Rogers and Angermeier & Rogers, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mark J. Rogers.
Motion for reconsideration denied.

Opinion:
DAY, J.
This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals dated February 12, 1986, which reversed Stephen L. Grant's (Defendant's) conviction on June 18, 1984, in the circuit court for Milwaukee county, Hon. Ralph G. Gorenstein, Circuit Judge, of the violation of two counts of second-degree sexual assault under sec. 940.225(2)(e), Stats., and one count of robbery, contrary to sec. 943.32.
The issue on review is: Did the court of appeals properly apply the harmless error test in reviewing an erroneous decision by the trial court to admit "other acts" evidence consisting of Defendant's arrest for prowling? We conclude that the court of appeals incorrectly applied the harmless error test. Properly applying the test for harmless error enunciated in State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985), there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction and we determine that the admission of evidence of the arrest for the ordinance violation constituted harmless error. We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
On February 22, 1983, Defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree sexual assault and one count of robbery. The crimes with which he was charged took place on February 13, 1983.
At trial, the victim testified as to the events that occurred in the early morning hours of February 13, 1983. After having fallen asleep with a bedroom light and television left on, the victim was awakened at approximately 3:30 a.m. by a noise in the dining room. A man wearing a stocking cap and jacket entered the bedroom. The victim testified she had about twenty seconds in which to view the man prior to his switching off of the light and television.
The assailant approached the victim, placing his hand over her mouth and advising her that if she did not move she would not be hurt. After questioning the victim as to whether they were alone, the man demanded money, and the two proceeded side-by-side to the dining room to retrieve the victim's wallet. They then walked into the kitchen to count the money.
Dissatisfied with the amount of money found, the man demanded more. The victim assured the man that this was all the money she had. The victim testified that she was threatened; the man kept telling her that if she looked at him he would kill her. In an effort to appease the assailant, the victim removed her eyeglasses. The victim testified that she was nearsighted and had no difficulty seeing objects near to her. The victim testified that she had no difficulty seeing the denominations of the bills removed from her wallet — two ten dollar bills and a one dollar bill. She also stated while on the witness stand that she could see the face of the court reporter without wearing her glasses. The distance between the court reporter and the victim while testifying was approximately one yard. In addition, she testified that since the living room, dining room, and kitchen were illuminated by a street light she had no difficulty seeing the assailant's face.
After walking to the front door and locking it, the assailant then took the victim to the bedroom. The man threatened the victim, stating: "[i]f you don't do what I ask you to do I'm going to hurt you." She was instructed to close her eyes and remove her clothes. The victim was then sexually assaulted.
At one point during the assault the assailant pulled aside the drape to look out the window. At this moment the victim glanced at him. This was the only time the victim looked at the man during the assault. After the assault, the man rummaged through some dresser drawers and then departed.
The victim called police and upon their arrival gave the following physical description of her assailant: he was a black male in his late teens to early twenties, about five foot eight inches tall, and weighed around 130 pounds. She then went to the police station and viewed fifty to sixty photographs, but did not identify any as the photograph of her assailant.
On February 21, 1983, the victim returned to the police station to view a lineup. She identified the Defendant, who was one of the five men in the lineup. The lineup took place following the Defendant's arrest for prowling. The Defendant is a black male, twenty-seven years old, five foot seven inches tall and weighs 140 pounds.
During the jury trial, the prosecutor sought to introduce evidence of Defendant's arrest on February 19, 1983, on an ordinance violation for prowling. A woman, standing inside her home, had observed Defendant peering in her window. The police were called and upon their arrival they also saw the Defendant peering into the window of the woman's house. Upon his arrest, Defendant had in his possession the name and address of the woman. The trial court allowed admission of evidence of the prowling violation pursuant to sec. 904.04(2) Stats.
On appeal, the state conceded that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of the prowling violation. The court of appeals held that the trial court erroneously allowed the state to admit evidence of Defendant's arrest for prowling, and that the error was not harmless. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
In determining whether the admission of the prowling evidence constituted harmless error, the court of appeals stated:
"We must now determine whether this error is harmless. The harmless error test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. A reasonable possibility is a possibility sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome. As a general rule, the erroneous receipt of evidence of the defendant's bad character or his commission of specific disconnected acts is prejudicial error. The burden is on the state to show that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.
"Here the state has failed to carry its burden. It is reasonably likely that the jury, upon hearing the prowling evidence, convicted Grant not because the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but because it thought that Grant had the propensity to commit bad acts. This is the very conclusion that sec. 904.04, Stats., seeks to prevent. The jury could have believed that Grant was indeed 'caught in the act' when he was arrested for prowling. Had the prowling evidence been excluded, it is reasonably possible that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Our confidence in the outcome of this trial is thus undermined." (Footnotes omitted). (Emphasis added.)
The instant case presents the single issue of whether the admission of other acts evidence constitutes harmless error.
The potential dangers in admitting other-acts testimony are well known. Our rules of evidence do not allow this type of evidence to be admitted merely to show that the Defendant had a propensity to commit the type of acts for which he is charged. In the instant case it is argued that the admission of the evidence of the prowling arrest may have influenced the jury in such a way that it was more easily led to resolve the identity issue and determine the matter of guilt based on the Defendant's apparent propensity to commit acts such as prowling, acts which are arguably related to the sexual misconduct with which he was charged.
While the error was potentially prejudicial to the Defendant, there remains the fact that there is substantial evidence, unrelated to the prowling evidence, which confirms the victim's identification of the Defendant. Courts turn to the harmless error test for guidance in these situations in assessing whether the error is sufficiently grievous that a new trial should result.
The harmless error test as set forth in Dyess contemplates that the "reviewing court must set aside the verdict unless it is sure that the error did not influence the jury or had such slight effect as to be de minimus." Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d at 541-542. The reviewing court must determine "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." Id. at 543. In assessing this, the focus should be on whether the error undermines the court's confidence in the outcome of the case. Id. at 545. We conclude that the outcome in this case was not undermined by the admission of the other-acts testimony.
This court has reviewed trial error by analyzing the error "in the context of the entire trial." State v. Zelenka, 130 Wis. 2d 34, 49, 387 N.W.2d 55 (1986). In Zelenka, this court applied the Dyess harmless error test to assess whether erroneous jury instructions could be deemed harmless. This court stated: "To make this determination, we do not view this instruction in isolation from the trial nor do we consider whether such an instruction could prejudice the verdict in some hypothetical trial. We view this instruction in the context of the entire trial." Id. at 49.
In the instant case the erroneous admission of the other-acts testimony must be viewed in a similar light. In State v. Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d 247, 378 N.W.2d 272 (1985), the court applied the Dyess harmless error test to determine whether the erroneous admission of other acts evidence could be deemed harmless. As in the present case, application of the Dyess test involved the review of evidence presented at trial. An important part of the Fishnick harmless error analysis involved an assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence "untainted by the error." See, Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d at 266-267. Viewing the error in the context of the entire trial, and considering the strength of the untainted evidence, we conclude that the error was harmless.
As noted above, the chief issue at trial was identification. To a large extent, the jury had to depend on judging the credibility of the victim on the stand. It has been observed many times that credibility of witnesses is a matter best determined by the jury. The victim's testimony states that she was with the assailant for approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. She saw the assailant enter her bedroom, and was able to look at him directly for roughly twenty seconds. She walked through the house with the assailant, between rooms that were illuminated by a street light. She had removed her glasses, but her nearsightedness did not prohibit her seeing the assailant, who was in close proximity the entire time. She also saw his face again briefly during the assault. We note that the victim also listened to the man speak the entire time. The victim was able to judge the physical characteristics of the man based on direct physical contact. The victim did not identify the assailant at a police station photograph session but did identify the Defendant at a subsequent lineup. We find that the jury could have convicted Defendant based on the foregoing testimony. There is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.
We agree with the state that the other-acts evidence had little impact on the jury. This evidence constituted a very minor part of the prosecution's case. Our review of the record reveals overwhelming evidence supporting guilt.
We also note that an additional factor is present in the instant case which supports upholding the conviction: a concern for the victim. As noted in United States v. Mechanik, 106 S. Ct. 938, 942 (1986):
"The reversal of a conviction entails substantial social costs: it forces jurors, witnesses, courts, the prosecution, and the defendant to expend further time, energy, and other resources to repeat a trial that has already once taken place; victims may be asked to relive their disturbing experiences. " (Emphasis added.)
The United States Supreme Court has stated that "in the administration of criminal justice, courts may not ignore the concerns of victims" and the potential "ordeal" they would be forced and put through in a retrial. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14 (1982). Here there would be nothing gained in forcing the victim to relive the humiliating and degrading experience of a sexual assault. We, therefore, using the test in Dyess, reverse the decision of the court of appeals in this non-constitutional error case.
By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
The arrest for prowling involved a violation of a city ordinance. Since such violation is only a forfeiture action, this did not constitute a "crime" under sec. 939.12, Stats., which provides:
"939.12 Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime."
Section 904.04(2), Stats., provides:
"904.04 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes. . (2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."
The trial court cited State v. Pharr, 115 Wis. 2d 334, 340 N.W.2d 498 (1983) for the two-part test to be used when consider ing the admissibility of other-acts evidence. The trial court found, under the first part of the test, that the evidence fit into one of the exceptions listed in sec. 904.04(2), Stats. The trial court concluded that the evidence was "relevant to show . motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan." The trial court also noted: "I think this also shows the absence of mistake . since here it was involved in at least the percursor [sic], or possible percursor [sic] to another similar act."
Under the second step, the court determines whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effort. Section 904.03, Stats., provides:
"904.03 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
In balancing the probative value versus prejudicial effect under sec. 904.03, Stats., the trial court concluded: "[t]his court feels that because of the nature of the event, the closeness of the time, the closeness of the description, the modus operandi; that the probative value is greater than the prejudicial value ."
The court of appeals noted that the trial court admitted the prowling evidence because the trial court was of the opinion that it showed the defendant "was caught in the act of committing an act similar to the prior sexual assault and robbery." The court of appeals cited remarks made by the trial judge at the postconviction motion hearing:
"For Mr. Grant to have picked out this lady to rape he obviously had to check over the premises, to look out, to plan to do all the things the cases talk about, and that's exactly the same thing he was doing six days later when he was caught. Exactly."
The court of appeals, observing that the sole issue at trial was identification, noted that in order for the prowling evidence to be relevant, it had to "make the fact of Grant's identification" either more probable or less probable. Reasoning that the fact the Defendant was later arrested for prowling did not make it any more probable that he committed the assault and robbery, the court held that the prowling evidence was irrelevant and that therefore the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence to be admitted.
For purposes of this review, we assume the court of appeals is correct in holding the prowling evidence was inadmissible.