State v. A.M.N., 2024AP440-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
While the State concedes that A.M.N.’s statutory right to appear in person for a competency hearing was violated, COA finds the error harmless and affirms.
After “Aiden” was charged with two misdemeanors, the circuit court sua sponte raised the issue of competency. (¶2). At a status hearing following the filing of the doctor’s report, Aiden told the court he objected to any proceedings occurring via Zoom. (¶4). He reiterated that request at a follow-up hearing regarding the appointment of counsel. (¶5). However, at the competency hearing, he appeared via Zoom. (¶6). His requests to appear in-person were repeatedly rebuffed. (Id.).
Aiden now appeals an order of commitment for treatment to competency, arguing that his statutory right to appear in-person under § 971.04(1) was violated. (¶11). Notably, the State concedes that this hearing satisfied the statutory requirements and that Aiden was therefore entitled to appear in-person; it therefore concedes that his rights were violated. (¶14).
As COA explains, there is no “case concluding that the harmless error rule applies” to a violation of this statute. (¶16). However, COA believes that the harmless error rule codified in § 805.18 applies. (¶17). Accordingly, COA believes reversal is only warranted if the violation affected the “substantial rights” of Aiden. (¶20).Here, COA believes there was no way Aiden’s physical appearance would have mattered and the record shows he otherwise received a “fair and just” hearing. (¶22). Thus, while it condemns the circuit court’s cavalier disregard of Aiden’s statutory right to appear, it also finds there was no benefit to be had by appearing in-person and affirms. (¶23).
While a footnote flags a lurking mootness problem, Aiden appears to have the seeds of a potentially interesting petition for review. As COA concedes, there’s no precedent for applying the harmless error rule to violations of the statutory right to appear in person. More to the point, and as Aiden points out, an earlier SCOW case (Koopmans) did not apply the harmless error rule to a similar violation.
