Evidence — other acts

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Evidence — other acts — harmless error

Although it was harmless error to admit irrelevant other acts, the error was harmless.

“[O]ur finding that the trial court should not have admitted the testimony of Sarah and Gail does not end the matter. We next look to see if this admission was harmless error. The test for harmless error is ‘whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the conviction.’ Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d at 543. We are satisfied that the testimony of patients Sarah and Gail did not contribute to Adamczak’s conviction. While the testimony of the two women was unflattering to Adamczak, neither claimed to have had any physical contact with Adamczak, nor to have been directly solicited for sexual contact. At best, their testimony suggested that Adamczak was inappropriate with two of his patients. Indeed, Sarah was Adamczak’s patient for over two years and his conduct towards her never escalated. Thus, her testimony did not support the State’s argument made at the motion hearing that Adamczak ‘use[s] his position as a therapist to obtain sexual contact from these patients’ and that Adamczak ‘was driven by a sexual intent.’ Further, their testimony, given the benign nature of Adamczak’s statements, did not poison the jury towards Adamczak.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP310-CR State v. Adamczak

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Dallet, J., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Quinn, Kathleen M., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Wittwer, Jacob J., Madison