On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. Deonte D. Anderson, 2025AP1309 & 2025AP1310, 9/2/26, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s petition for conditional release from a commitment entered after he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.  Although the defendant no longer suffered from a mental illness and had not engaged in violence for four years, his poor behavioral record at the Mendota Mental Health Institute was sufficient evidence to deny the petition.

Door County v. R.A.W., 2026AP83, 8/18/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the appellant’s protective placement in a 24-hour community based residential facility because evidence from the initial hearing and hearing to continue protective placement was sufficient to show that the current placement was the least restrictive in light of the appellant’s need for medication management and 24-hour supervision.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/18/26; case activity

SCOW grants the state’s petition in this defense win (see our post on the COA decision here), which held that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness.

Winnebago County v. J.S., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a recommitment appeal alleging a lack of sufficient findings, COA invokes a somewhat novel legal theory to excuse an oral ruling that it agrees could have been more thorough.

Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, 7/7/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW holds that this appeal from an annual review of a protective placement is not moot, somewhat reluctantly applies the governing standard of review, and affirms.

Ozaukee County v. T.D.D., 2025AP2257, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing Ozaukee County’s petition for commitment under Chapter 51 in light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B. that failing to comply with the 48-hour deadline to make expert reports available to counsel did not divest the circuit court of competency.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW refuses an invitation to retreat from previous decisions making it difficult for a Chapter 51 appeal to be moot but ultimately holds that R.D.T. is not entitled to relief as a result of the allegedly improper admission of hearsay evidence.

Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2026 WI 23, 6/26/26, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity

In a unanimous decision, SCOW held that the deadline to provide access to examiners’ 48 hours in advance of the final hearing is not central to Chapter 51’s statutory scheme, violating the deadline does not divest the circuit court of competency to proceed, and the circuit court must therefore review whether failing to comply with the deadline was harmless error.

La Crosse County v. P.A.E., 2025AP303, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reverses the circuit court’s order continuing PAE’s protective placement on the basis that La Crosse County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that PAE was so totally incapable of providing for her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.

Winnebago County v. T.R.A., 2025AP2428, 6/24/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects T.R.A.’s reading of the statutory requirements, finds ample evidence of dangerousness, and affirms.