Opinion ID: 1973905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Transcript of Conference Between Defendant and Alibi Witnesses

Text: Lastly, the defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to order the defense to turn over copies of transcripts of interviews between the defense attorney, the defendant and the alibi witnesses. The defendant alleges that the transcripts involved in this case were not covered by the requirements of sec. 971.24(1), Stats. [10] The trial court found the transcript of the conference between the defendant and his alibi witnesses represented statements. The court of appeals held that this determination is a finding of fact, resolving an issue as to fact presented to the trial court. Sec. 971.24(1), Stats., refers to written or phonographically recorded statements. The statements in this case consisted of either the defense attorney's notes or the shorthand notes of the defense counsel's secretary. We believe the attorney's and secretary's notes in this case are not included within the meaning and intent of this statute as to authenticity, accuracy and completeness and further they were not attested to by the secretary or the attorney. The purpose of the statute is to provide opposing counsel with prior statements of a witness in order to test whether the witness' testimony is consistent and accurate. The statute clearly was not intended to require the production of inaccurate and incomplete statements of a witness which would not advance or serve the fact finding process. The Comment of the Judicial Council, (1969), to sec. 971.24 (1), states that this statute is a restatement of the existing case law in State v. Richards, 21 Wis.2d 622, 124 N.W.2d 684 . . . In Richards this court held that the right to inspect prior statements of a witness to the authorities: . . . goes only to statements or portions thereof concerning the subject matter of the witness' testimony and written or signed by the witness or given orally and stenographically or mechanically transcribed. (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Richards, 21 Wis.2d 622, 633, 124 N.W.2d 684 (1963). [7] While there is language in State v. Richards, supra , that oral statements stenographically transcribed may be required to be produced, it is this court's view that this language refers to oral statements that have been recorded verbatim. It is our belief that there must be some indicia of the reliability of the statement (including its accuracy, completeness and authenticity) as a requirement to ordering the production of the statement, pursuant to sec. 971.24 (1), Stats. We hold that the court of appeals' affirmation of the trial court's finding of fact that the transcript constituted a written or recorded statement was, as a matter of law, in error. [8, 9] In Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371, 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977), this court held that: Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred. Woodhull v. State, 43 Wis.2d 202, 168 N.W.2d 281 (1969). Id. at 394. See also: State v. Bowie, 92 Wis.2d 192, 284 N.W.2d 613 (1979). Moreover, in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis.2d 302, 284 N.W. 2d 904 (1979) this court set forth the test for harmless error as follows: `Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.' Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371, 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). In Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356, 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), a case involving improperly admitted evidence, the court stated: `The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250, 89 Sup. Ct. 1726, 23 L. Ed. 2d 284. This test is based on reasonable probabilities.' Other formulations of the harmless error test would require reviewing courts to set aside the verdict and judgment unless sure that error did not influence the jury or had but only slight effect. Kelly v. State, 75 Wis.2d 303, 317 n. 3, 249 N.W.2d 800 (1977) and concurring opinion at 321. Id. at 308. In this case the trial court ordered that the transcript of the conference between the defendant (Pohl), his attorney and the alibi witnesses be turned over to the prosecution. The state used the statements to prepare for cross-examination of the alibi witnesses, but due to the fact that there were no material inconsistencies or variations between their testimony and statements, they were of no avail to the state for use as impeachment of the alibi witnesses. Thus, the statements were not even used by the prosecution for impeachment purposes in this case. Therefore, we find the use of the statements at trial was not prejudicial to Pohl. A thorough review of the record establishes that there existed an overwhelming quantum of evidence, as to the defendant's participation in the burglaries, to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, there is no evidence that the error influenced the jury. Therefore, we hold that the error in this case was harmless error, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial and the judgment of conviction on two counts of burglary is affirmed. By the Court.  The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). The last two sentences of sec. 971.12(3), Stats., provide as follows: The district attorney shall advise the court prior to trial if he intends to use the statement of a codefendant which implicates another defendant in the crime charged. Thereupon, the judge shall grant a severance as to any such defendant. The last two sentences of sec. 971.12(3) are mandatory. The district attorney is required to advise the court prior to trial if he intends to use the statement of a codefendent which implicates another defendant in the crime charged. When advised by the district attorney, the judge is required to grant a severance as to any such defendant. If before trial the trial court excises a portion of the codefendant's statement to remove the matter which implicates the defendant in order to avoid falling within the last two sentences of sec. 971.12(3), Stats., the trial court must continue with the excision if it is to continue with the trial.