State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2013 WI 47

Beamon was convicted of fleeing or attempting to elude a traffic officer under Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3) after a Racine County chase in November 2007.
The trial involved off-duty officer Cecchini and Officer Miller, who pursued a moving vehicle with headlights extinguished at 45–50 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Beamon exited the moving vehicle after a stop-sign encounter, ran over Beamon's legs, then Beamon fled on foot, pursued by Officer Miller.
The information charged Beamon with fleeing or eluding and described the offense including an alleged increase in speed or extinguishing lights in an attempt to elude.
At trial, jury instructions incorrectly stated that the second element required proof that Beamon increased the speed to flee, in addition to other statutory requirements.
The appellate court held the instructions erroneous but applied harmless-error analysis and affirmed; the supreme court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether erroneous jury instructions tainted the sufficiency review	Beamon argues instructions added an extra requirement beyond the statute.	State contends sufficiency can be judged against the statutory requirements despite the erroneous instruction.	Erroneous instructions require harmless-error analysis and statutory comparison.
Was the erroneous instruction harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	The error prevented correct application of the statute, so reversal is required.	Totality of evidence supports guilt even with the error.	Yes, the error was harmless under the totality of circumstances.
Should sufficiency be measured against the jury instruction rather than the statute	Court should measure against the instruction actually given.	Because the instruction deviates from the statute, the measure should be the statute.	Sufficiency must be evaluated against the statutory requirements when instructions misstate the law.
Whether the State forfeited its challenge to the instructions	State forfeited by not objecting at conference.	The court can review erroneous instructions notwithstanding forfeiture to protect the law.	The court declined to apply forfeiture and reviewed the merits.

State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis.2d 985 (Ct. App. 1991) (context on reviewing sufficiency with jury instructions)
State v. Zelenka, 130 Wis.2d 34 (1986) (instruction error and harmless error analysis guidance)
State v. Courtney, 74 Wis.2d 705 (1976) (law-of-the-case and sufficiency when jury instruction adds element)
State v. Wulff, 207 Wis.2d 143 (1997) (sufficiency analyzed against instructed theory; other theories not eligible)
State v. Harvey, 254 Wis.2d 442 (2002) (harmless-error standard applied to instructional error)
State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493 (1990) (high standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 340 Wis.2d 307 (2012) (illustrates when sufficiency is evaluated in light of instructions)
Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (harmless-error analysis applicable to some instruction errors)