|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED September 7, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-1330-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM J. WALMSLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for La Crosse County:
MICHAEL J. MULROY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Dykman and Sundby, JJ.
PER CURIAM. William Walmsley appeals from a judgment
convicting him of false imprisonment and sexual assault of a child. The issue is whether the trial court erred
by excluding evidence of prior inconsistent statements made by the victim,
J.W. Because we conclude that any error
in excluding the evidence was harmless, we affirm.
Walmsley was convicted
for keeping J.W. in a room against her will for several minutes and touching
her breasts. He was acquitted on the
charge that he also attempted further sexual contact with her.
J.W. told police and
testified in court that she had had no previous sexual contact with
Walmsley. However, in a written
statement to the police, a friend reported that J.W. had stated after the
incident that "this had happened before," possibly referring to
previous sexual assaults against her by Walmsley. When counsel attempted to cross-examine J.W. about this potential
inconsistency, the State objected. The
trial court then excluded evidence of the friend's statement under the Rape
Shield Law, because Walmsley did not raise the issue in a pretrial motion. See §§ 972.11(2) and 971.31(11),
Stats.
Any error in excluding
the evidence of inconsistent prior statements was harmless. An error is harmless if there is no
reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. State v. Dyess, 124 Wis.2d
525, 543, 370 N.W.2d 222, 231-32 (1985).
Here, Walmsley sought to use J.W.'s possible inconsistency to portray
her as untruthful or unreliable.
However, Walmsley was able to introduce a substantial amount of other
evidence on that point.[1] The excluded evidence, which was ambiguous
and of doubtful significance in any event, was therefore cumulative and
Walmsley was able to fully present his defense without it.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.