Confrontation Clause; harmless error
Peter Whyte appeals a judgment, entered upon a jury’s verdict, convicting him of second-degree intentional homicide. Whyte argues that the admission of hearsay evidence violated his right to confrontation. We conclude the error, if any, in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Whyte’s guilt. We therefore affirm the judgment. This opinion will not be published.
2009AP1245-CR State v. Whyte
Dist III, St. Croix County, Lundell, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Fairchild, Michael J., Menomonie; For Respondent: Johnson, Eric G., Hudson; Moeller, Marguerite M., Madison