State v. James R. Hunt
2014 Wisc. LEXIS 729
| Wis. | 2014Background
- Hunt was convicted in circuit court of causing a child under 13 to view/listen to sexual activity (a video) and was sentenced to probation and jail time.
- A.H., Hunt's adopted daughter, testified about images shown by Hunt, including a video of intercourse; Venske allegedly sent images to Hunt.
- Hunt sought to exclude testimony that Venske never sent the video; the circuit court excluded this testimony.
- Officer Nachtigal testified that A.H. had said Venske was the source of the video; the court admitted related hearsay evidence with a limiting instruction.
- The court of appeals reversed, finding error in excluding Venske's testimony and nonharmless impact; this Court granted review to reinstate the circuit court judgment.
- This Court held that Venske's testimony was harmless error and Hunt's ineffective assistance claims failed; the circuit court judgment was reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding Venske's testimony was harmless error | Hunt | Hunt | Harmless error |
| Whether Hunt received ineffective assistance of counsel | Hunt | Hunt | Claims fail under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harvey, 254 Wis. 2d 442 (Wis. 2002) (harmless error standard reference)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (harmlessness standard quoted)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Norman, 262 Wis. 2d 506 (Wis. 2003) (harmless error factors guidance)
- State v. Harris, 307 Wis. 2d 555 (Wis. 2008) (harmless error framework application)
- State v. Trawitzki, 244 Wis. 2d 523 (Wis. 2001) (ineffective assistance standard application)