Court Opinion

ID: 9718573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:27:19.777115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.434251
License: Public Domain

BEILFUSS, C. J.
(concurring). I agree that this case should be reversed and a new trial ordered primarily because it was so poorly tried, and to the degree that the defendant did not receive a fair trial as that rule is generally understood under our constitutional concepts as embodied in the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution and our Wisconsin Constitution. The evidence in the case viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict is sufficient to sustain the conviction, but the trial was so infected by so many trial counsel errors, some substantial and some insubstantial, that a new trial should be ordered.
I further agree that this is not a conviction that should be reversed under sec. 251.09, Stats., in the interest of justice because it is not probable a retrial will bring a different result.
*195I also agree that the majority’s reliance on the plain error rule embodied in sec. 901.03(1) and (4), Stats.,1 is appropriate. However I do point out that the language of the statute makes its application permissible or discretionary. This statute should be used sparingly and only in cases such as this, where a basic constitutional right has not been extended to the accused.

 “901.03 Rulings on evidence. (1) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected;
“(4) Plain Error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.”