State v. Luther Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2002 WI 118 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 00-3065-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Luther Williams, III, Defendant-Appellant. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2002 WI 58 Reported at: 253 Wis. 2d 99, 644 N.W.2d 919 OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: October 24, 2002 2002 WI 118 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 00-3065-CR (L.C. No. 99 CF 793 STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, FILED Plaintiff-Respondent, OCT 24, 2002 v. Luther Williams, III, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendant-Appellant. MOTION for reconsideration. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Reconsideration denied. The State of Wisconsin moves the court to reconsider its opinion in State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, 253 seeks Wis. 2d 99, clarification reviewing a claim 644 N.W.2d 919. of the that standard inadmissible Essentially, to be hearsay the State employed when violated the defendant's right of confrontation. ¶2 To clarify the Williams opinion, we now modify ¶33 to read as follows: ¶33 The threshold question in examining whether a defendant's right to confrontation is violated by the admission of hearsay evidence is whether that evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence. State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210, 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). No. 00-3065-CR If the evidence does not fit within a recognized hearsay exception, it must be excluded. Id. Only after it is established that the evidence fits within a recognized hearsay exception or was admitted erroneously does it become necessary to consider confrontation. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 137 (1968); Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210. Here, we determine that the lab report does not fit within the business records hearsay exception as the State asserts, but the admission was harmless error. Thus, we do not reach this confrontation issue because a determination of a Confrontation Clause violation does not result in automatic reversal, but rather is subject to harmless error analysis. Delaware v. Van Arsdale, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986). Even if Williams' right to confrontation was violated, the violation was harmless error. ¶3 The motion for reconsideration costs. 2 is denied without No. 1 00-3065-CR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
