State v. Maltese Lavele Williams
867 N.W.2d 736
Wis.2015Background
- On Jan 14–15, 2013, Maltese Lávele Williams and accomplices attempted to rob Michael Parker; Parker and houseguest Authur Robinson were shot and killed during the incident.
- Williams was tried as a party to crimes: charged with homicide (including felony murder) and attempted armed robbery; the State’s trial theory focused on an attempted robbery of Parker (the homeowner).
- Jury instructions defined felony murder as requiring an attempted armed robbery of each named victim, including Robinson — a theory the State did not primarily present at trial.
- The jury convicted Williams of felony murder for both deaths, found him guilty of attempted armed robbery of Parker, but acquitted him of attempted robbery of Robinson.
- Williams appealed, arguing the jury was instructed on a theory (attempted robbery of Robinson) unsupported by the evidence; he also claimed ineffective assistance for not striking a juror who disliked crime-scene photos and for not objecting to admission of autopsy photographs.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to clarify how to handle convictions grounded on erroneous jury instructions and applied harmless-error analysis; it affirmed the conviction and rejected the ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction may be sustained when jury instructions described a theory of the crime not actually presented at trial (sufficiency/error in instructions) | The instruction required attempted robbery of Robinson; there was insufficient evidence of that predicate, so conviction for Robinson's felony murder must be reversed (Wulff-like) | Any instruction error favored the defense or raised the State’s burden; erroneous instructions are subject to harmless error and should be upheld if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would have convicted under the correct instruction (Beamon-like) | Jury instructions that present a theory not tried are erroneous but reviewed for harmless error; here the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would have convicted under the State’s actual theory (attempted robbery of Parker), so the error was harmless and conviction affirmed. |
| Whether Williams received ineffective assistance because counsel failed to strike a juror who expressed aversion to viewing gore photos and failed to object to crime-scene/autopsy photographs | Failure to strike Juror No. 12 and failure to object to photos denied Williams an impartial jury and prejudiced the defense | Juror’s statements reflected discomfort, not disqualifying subjective bias; photos were probative and not unduly prejudicial — any objection would likely have failed | No prejudice shown under Strickland; counsel’s omissions did not undermine confidence in the outcome, so ineffective-assistance claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wulff, 207 Wis. 2d 143 (1997) (conviction reversed where jury was not instructed on the theory actually supported by the evidence)
- State v. Beamon, 347 Wis. 2d 559 (2013) (erroneous jury instruction that added elements is subject to harmless-error review and may be upheld if conviction would have occurred under correct instruction)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (harmless-error analysis applies to jury instruction errors)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (clarifies harmless-error standard for omitted elements in jury instructions)
- State v. Harvey, 254 Wis. 2d 442 (2002) (Wisconsin adoption of harmless-error framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)