On Point: F. Sec. 971.14 commitments

State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.

State v. T.A.W., 2025AP437-CR, 6/3/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although the charges against T.A.W. — resisting an officer causing soft tissue injury and retail theft — are not “serious crimes” under Wis. Stat. § 969.08, which specifies procedures for pretrial release, the COA found that the State met its burden to show an important governmental interest in forcibly medicating T.A.W. to competency under the aggravated circumstances of the case.

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.

State v. D.E.C., 2024AP1789-CR & 2024AP1799-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In yet another published decision pertaining to an involuntary medication order entered in conjunction with pretrial competency proceedings, COA holds that the testimony of a treating psychiatrist, in conjunction with the proposed treatment plan, was legally sufficient and affirms the order for treatment.

State v. N.K.B., 2023AP722-CR, 10/1/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity

N.K.B. (referred to as Naomi) was found incompetent to proceed on her criminal charges.  The circuit court authorized involuntarily administering medication to Naomi because she was dangerous.  Naomi argued on appeal that the circuit court did not have authority to authorize involuntarily medicating her based only on dangerousness.  In a recommended-for-publication decision, the COA vacated the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntary medication: “Defendants committed under § 971.14 cannot be involuntarily medicated based on dangerousness absent the commencement of proceedings under ch. 51 or some other statute that authorizes involuntary medication based on the defendant’s dangerousness.”  (¶ 20).

State v. J.D.B., 2023AP715-CR, 9/10/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity

In a recommended-for-publication decision, COA wholly endorses all of J.D.B.’s arguments requiring a high burden of proof when the State seeks an involuntary medication order in order to render a defendant competent to stand trial. Along the way, COA offers a bevy of helpful holdings that are also applicable outside of this highly-specialized practiced area.

Milwaukee County v. D.H., 2022AP1402, 3/7/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

To obtain an involuntary medication order, a county must satisfy the multi-step test for incompetency to make medication decisions in §51.61(1)(g)4. The first step requires the county to prove that the person received a “reasonable explanation” of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication. The examiner can’t just testify that she complied with the statute. She must tell the court what she told the person about the medication. In “Dan’s” case, the court of appeals reversed the involuntary medication order because the county failed this step.

Mandatory Circuit Court Form CR-206 suggests that in a criminal case the circuit court may order involuntary medication for an incompetent defendant because he is dangerous. Is the form correct? No, under the current state of federal and Wisconsin law, a criminal court may not order the involuntary administration of antipsychotic for an incompetent defendant based on dangerousness.