Court Opinion

ID: 9696575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:51:48.106211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:23.559647
License: Public Domain

YOSS, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that Gustafson’s conviction on the second-degree sexual assault involving C.L.Y. should be affirmed. I also agree that the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on unanimity in the B.J.G. case. I cannot, however, agree that the trial court’s error was harmless.
*384The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees all persons a right to a fair trial. Inherent in this guarantee is the right to a unanimous jury verdict and the due process requirement that the prosecution prove each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).
I acknowledge that some errors of constitutional dimension are subject to the harmless error doctrine, State v. Sharlow, 106 Wis. 2d 440, 448, 317 N.W.2d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 1982). However, this court has stated that:
We may find a federal constitutional error to be harmless only if we are “able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ... In order to declare such a belief, we must find that there is no “reasonable possibility” that the error “might have contributed to the conviction.” [Citations omitted.]
State v. Feela, 101 Wis. 2d 249, 269, 304 N.W.2d 152, 162 (Ct. App. 1981). After reviewing the record, I cannot conclude that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on unanimity was harmless error because I believe there is a strong possibility that the omission deprived Gustafson of his fundamental right to a unanimous jury verdict.
The jury received improper instructions. Since the trial court used the disjunctive mode in instructing the jury, the jury may not have understood what they actually had to agree on to find that Gustafson had sexually assaulted B.J.G. On appeal, this court has no way of knowing what happened during the jury’s deliberation. Thus, we can only speculate on whether the jury properly convicted Gustafson. Since the right to be properly tried by one’s peers is an important and fundamental safeguard in our legal process, I am very reluctant to *385engage in such speculation. Therefore, because I cannot say what took place in the jury room, I cannot declare that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction.