Plain Error-Jury Instructions

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Earl L. Parr

Case No.: 2024AP002482-CR

Officials: White, C.J., Colón, P.J., and Geenen, J.

Focus: Plain Error-Jury Instructions

Parr was convicted for a drive-by shooting in which a passenger in a vehicle fired a rifle, injuring one victim and endangering another. The State’s theory at trial was that Parr was the shooter, while the defense argued misidentification. The jury found Parr guilty but did not find that he used a dangerous weapon, creating an arguably inconsistent verdict.

Parr then argued that the trial court committed plain error in responding to a jury question by directing jurors to review an existing instruction, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and that a new trial was warranted in the interest of justice.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s response was reasonable and not plainly erroneous, as referring the jury to the instructions did not mislead or alter the charges. Because any objection would have lacked merit, counsel was not ineffective.

The court also found no prejudice, emphasizing that any claim about how the jury reached its verdict would be speculative. Finally, it declined to grant a new trial, explaining that inconsistent verdicts alone do not justify reversal and may reflect leniency or compromise.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/02/26

Full Text