Opinion ID: 1923088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questioning witness outside presence of jury.

Text: The following question was asked of Officer Guerin by defense counsel outside the presence of the jury: The Court: You are already under oath, Officer Guerin. [Defense counsel], you had a question or two more for the officer? [ Defendant's Attorney ]: Yes, your Honor. Q. Officer Guerin, directing your attention to what has been marked as state's Exhibit No. 1 for identification, you testified earlier that you observed some pressure which you might call the trigger finger, the finger you observed over the trigger. Would you tell me whether or not you observed the cylinder turn at all from that time. The Witness: From my point of view, no sir, I did not. [ Defendant's Attorney ]: Fine, I have nothing further. Defendant argues that because the jury did not hear the above testimony, defendant was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial. Testimony of defense counsel on hearing postconviction motions reflects that failure to present the foregoing testimony to the jury was an inadvertent omission. The testimony inadvertently omitted would not have materially altered the outcome of the trial. Sergeant Guerin had previously testified that he could not recall seeing the hammer of the gun go back or of hearing the gun click. Sergeant Miller testified that he did not see the hammer go back or the cylinder turn. It is obvious that the jury believed Sergeant Miller when he stated that he heard a click of the gun and the inability to see or the actual observation of Sergeant Guerin with respect to the turning of the cylinder would not have substantially taken away from Sergeant Miller's testimony. In Logan v. State (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 128, 168 N. W. 2d 171, relied on by appellant, defense counsel was confused and mistaken about the mechanics of eliciting certain admissible testimony. The testimony was highly probative and could have materially altered the outcome of the trial. This court ordered a new trial in the interest of justice. In the instant case, defense counsel was not confused with respect to eliciting the testimony in the presence of the jury. Error cannot be predicated on omission of testimony which was never proffered as evidence for the jury to hear; nor can it be predicated on the taking of such testimony outside the presence of the jury, at least by defense counsel. Omission of such testimony may, however, if highly probative, be the basis for a new trial in the interest of justice as was the case in Logan. The remaining issues raised by defendant have been considered and found to be without arguable merit and without significant effect upon the judgment and verdict reached in this case. A review of the entire record leads us to the conclusion that the defendant was properly convicted of the crime charged. We find nothing to indicate that justice has not been well served by this conviction, nor is there any evidence to indicate that a different result would obtain under optimum circumstances. No miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant a new trial under sec. 251.09, Stats. By the Court Judgment and order affirmed.