By: dmc-admin//April 15, 2002//
“When the trial court stated that it saw a need to ‘avoid needless consumption of time’ and to ‘protect [the victim] from further harassment,’ it tacitly invoked § 904.03. In light of this, [citation], and the following reasons, we conclude that the trial court’s reliance on § 906.11 was harmless error….
“Here, any error was harmless because the discrepancies between the victim’s prior statements and her trial testimony were minor compared with the overall consistency of each of her accounts of this traumatic experience…. Because these discrepancies did not affect the substance of the victim’s testimony and Smith was not prejudiced by their exclusion, we conclude that the victim’s trial testimony did not constitute a repudiation of her prior statements, and, thus, Smith has failed to establish a reasonable possibility of a different outcome.”
Judgment and order affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist I, Milwaukee County, DiMotto, J., Curley, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Erich C. Straub, Milwaukee
For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Marguerite M. Moeller, Madison