Court Opinion

ID: 9528790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:44:00.926145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:20.525601
License: Public Domain

*601PER CURIAM.
On the same date as publication of State v. Webb, 160 Wis. 2d 622, 467 N.W.2d 108 (1991), the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. Fulminante, — U.S. —, 111 S Ct 1246 (1991). The Fulminante decision has no effect on our decision in Webb. In fact, it is not relevant to the Webb decision.
Fulminante involved the issue as to the use in trial for murder of a confession received in evidence that was found to be obtained in violation of the United States Constitution. The principal issue was whether the harmless error rule applied as decided in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
Fulminante dealt with the use of a coerced confession at trial. The issue in Webb was a partially closed preliminary examination which is a statutory right similar in purpose to a grand jury proceeding. Nothing from the preliminary examination which was illegal or unconstitutional was used at trial in the Webb case. In Webb it was conceded the defendant had a fair trial.
In Fulminante, the United States Supreme Court cited Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 49 (1984), which we considered in our Webb decision. The United States Supreme Court stated the rule in Waller as recognizing "that violation of the guarantee of a public trial required reversal without any showing of prejudice and even though the values of a public trial may be intangible and unprovable in any particular case." Fulminante, 111 S Ct at 1257. (Emphasis added.)
Waller dealt with a closure of a suppression hearing. The hearing was conducted prior to the presentation of evidence to the jury. Upon denial of the suppression hearing, the evidence was given to the jury. As the Court recognized, "suppression hearings often are as important as the trial itself." Waller, 467 U.S. at 46. Obviously, the *602evidence allowed through the closed hearing may be the type necessary for conviction. The court stated, "a suppression hearing often resembles a bench trial.... The need for an open proceeding may be particularly strong with respect to suppression hearings." Id. at 47.
Webb involved the statutory preliminary examination where only probable cause had to be found to bind the defendant over for the fair and error-free trial he received. The defendant did not claim that the alleged error of the preliminary hearing had any impact on the trial itself which was errorless.
The only persons definitely excluded from the Webb preliminary examination were defendant's mother and niece out of concern that the victim-witness not be intimidated. The record does not show that the hearing was otherwise closed to the public. The record does not show a total closure to the public which was the fear in Waller. There was no closure at trial as in Waller.
Footnote 6 of Webb was not a holding and should not be interpreted to mean we found the error harmless since we stated we did not consider the issue because that was not necessary.
By the Court. — The motion for reconsideration is denied.