Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                         This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
March 11, 2010
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
David R. Schanker                                                                                                                                        petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                                                                Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                         and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                         Cir. Ct. No.   2007CF203
Appeal No.                                                                              2009AP772-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                       IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
BRADLY S. ROSENTHAL,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL  from a judgment and  an order  of  the circuit court for
Wood County:  JAMES M. MASON, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Dykman, P.J., Vergeront and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1                                                                                      PER CURIAM.     Bradly Rosenthal appeals a judgment convicting
him of arson and an order denying his postconviction motion in which he alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel in part based on counsel’s failure to object to the
prosecutor’s closing argument.   The closing argument misstated the law relating to




No.   2009AP772-CR
reasonable doubt.   On appeal, Rosenthal requests a new trial in the interest of
justice because the real controversy was not fully tried based on the prosecutor’s
error.   The State concedes the error, but argues that the interest of justice standard
should  not  be  used  to  supplant  claims  of  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel.1
Because we conclude that Rosenthal has not established that the real controversy
was not fully tried, we affirm the judgment and order.
¶2                                                                                               In  his  closing  argument,  the  prosecutor  attempted  to  relate  the
reasonable doubt instruction to the process of buying a house.   He said even if he
did pause and hesitate before his purchase, he went ahead and bought the house
and was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to do so.   The prosecutor’s closing
statement  is  inconsistent  with  the  pattern  jury  instruction  that  describes  a
reasonable doubt as “such a doubt as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to
pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important affairs of life.”
See WIS JI—CRIMINAL 140 (2000).   However, the court twice read the jury the
correct definition of reasonable doubt and twice informed the jury that it should
reach its verdict under the instructions given by the court.   The transcript also
indicates  that  the  jury  instructions  were  sent  to  the  jury room  for  the  jury’s
consideration during deliberations.   The jury is presumed to follow the court’s
instruction.    State v. Deer,  125 Wis. 2d  357,  364,  372 N.W.2d  176  (Ct. App.
1985).
1  The State acknowledges that State v. Williams, 2006 WI App 212, ¶17, 296 Wis. 2d
834, 723 N.W.2d 719, allows the issue to be framed in this manner and that Williams is binding
on this court.  See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997).  We need not
address the State’s argument because we conclude that Rosenthal fails to establish a basis for
granting a new trial in the interest of justice.
2




No.   2009AP772-CR
¶3                                                                                    Rosenthal relies heavily on State v. Neuser, 191 Wis. 2d 131, 528
N.W.2d 49 (Ct. App. 1995), for the proposition that the real controversy is not
fully tried when the prosecutor misstates the law in a closing argument.   However,
in  Neuser  the  prosecutor  presumed  to  speak  for  the  court  and  then  spoke
incorrectly.    Id. at  138.   The incorrect statement went unchecked by opposing
counsel  and  the  trial  court.    Id.  at                                           140.    Here,  the  court’s  repeated  correct
explanation of the reasonable doubt standard and its instructions to follow the
court’s instructions regardless  of  the  comments of  counsel  defeat Rosenthal’s
argument that the controversy was not fully tried.
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
                                                                                      This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                             (b)5.
3

Download 47798.pdf

Wisconsin Law