State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 860 N.W.2d 10

Background

On August 20, 2010 Eddie Lee Anthony killed S.J.; medical evidence showed 45 sharp-force wounds (including a lethal aortic puncture), broken ribs, and blunt trauma. Multiple witnesses placed Anthony with an ice pick and reported prior threats; one witness said Anthony admitted stabbing S.J. 40–50 times.
Anthony did not deny the killing; his sole defense at trial was intended to be self-defense, with Anthony as the only eyewitness to testify.
Before taking the stand, Anthony insisted he would tell the jury about a 1966 armed-robbery conviction he claimed was wrongful and racially motivated and repeatedly stated he would disobey any court limitation, promising to “keep saying it” and to “bring everything out.”
The circuit court ruled that testimony about the 1966 conviction was irrelevant and, after multiple warnings and observing Anthony’s agitated demeanor (additional deputies called, requests for a stun belt), concluded Anthony forfeited his right to testify by promising to violate the ruling; Anthony therefore was not permitted to testify.
A jury convicted Anthony of first-degree intentional homicide; he was sentenced to life without extended supervision. The court of appeals affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Anthony)	Held
May a defendant forfeit the constitutional right to testify by conduct incompatible with asserting that right?	Forfeiture by disruptive/defiant conduct is permitted; Allen and other authorities support denial where conduct prevents fair trial or courtroom decorum.	The right to testify is fundamental; forfeiture by conduct is improper here because Anthony was never removed and his conduct did not warrant stripping the right.	A defendant may forfeit the right to testify through stubborn, defiant conduct that undermines trial fairness or courtroom decorum; Wisconsin adopts forfeiture-by-conduct (guided by Rock balancing).
Was the circuit court’s denial of Anthony’s testimony reasonable under Rock balancing?	The court reasonably protected the presentation of evidence and courtroom order given Anthony’s repeated promises to disobey and his enraged demeanor.	The exclusion was disproportionate: the court could have allowed testimony and sustained objections/issued limiting instructions; denying all testimony deprived Anthony of his only self-defense evidence.	The court’s forfeiture determination was not arbitrary or disproportionate; denial of the right to testify was reasonable under the totality of circumstances.
If exclusion of testimony is erroneous, is denial of the right to testify subject to harmless-error review?	Yes; denial of the right to testify is a trial error assessable for harmlessness.	(Anthony) Argues exclusion of relevant self-defense testimony is structural and not subject to harmless-error review.	The court holds denials of the right to testify are subject to harmless-error review; even assuming error here, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Was Anthony prejudiced such that he is entitled to relief?	Any assumed error was harmless in light of strong forensic and witness evidence undermining self-defense.	Exclusion prevented any defense; conviction likely affected—error not harmless.	Under Nelson factors, despite importance of testimony, corroborating/contradicting evidence and overall prosecution strength make any assumed error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Cases Cited

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify subject to reasonable, nonarbitrary limits; apply balancing test).
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (defendant may lose trial rights by disruptive conduct undermining courtroom order).
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1993) (constitutional protections implicated in defendant’s testimony).
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (right to present relevant defense evidence may yield to other legitimate trial interests but exclusion must not be arbitrary).
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (rules governing orderly presentation of evidence are essential to adversary process).
State v. Cummings, 199 Wis. 2d 721 (Wis. 1996) (defendant may forfeit constitutional rights, including counsel, by disruptive or manipulative conduct).
State v. Nelson, 355 Wis. 2d 722 (Wis. 2014) (error depriving defendant of right to testify is a trial error subject to harmless-error analysis).