On Point: f. 51.20(1)(a)2. Dangerousness

Winnebago County v. William A.M., 2014AP977-FT, District 2, 9/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove William was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., which requires a showing of “such impaired judgment, manifested by evidence of a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself or herself.”

On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Was there sufficient evidence to establish Michael H. was “dangerous” under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a. or c., based either on his “threats” of suicide or a pattern of acts or omissions showing such impaired judgment that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury?

Outagamie County v. Michael H., 2013AP1638-FT, District 3, 11/26/13 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 127; case activity

Michael H. challenges a jury verdict finding him “dangerous” under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2a and involuntarily committing him for mental health treatment.  Given this procedural posture, the court of appeals’ holding seems confined to the facts of this case. 

Winnebago County v. Gina A.R., 2013AP226, District 2, 5/22/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activty

The court rejects Gina A.R.’s claim that the evidence at the final hearing was insufficient to show she  is mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous, noting that much of her argument discusses facts not in the record and that the undisputed facts supported the commitment order. (¶¶4-6).

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.

Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12

 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:

¶7        As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

Trempealeau County v. Charles O., 2011AP2794, District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles O.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Charles O.’s argument that the evidence fell short of the “fifth-standard” showing of dangerousness, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶14, 255 Wis. 2d 359, 647 N.W.2d 851:

¶11      When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,

Manitowoc County v. Harlan H., 2011AP2499-FT, District 2, 1/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harlan H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence that Harlan had put his wife in a headlock on one occasion and physically resisted a deputy’s attempt to detain him another, coupled with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, held sufficient to support ch. 51 commitment.

¶6        Wisconsin Stat. 

Outagamie County v. Lorna G., 2011AP1662, District 3, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorna G.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although the trial court’s reference to “potential” for harm was an “imprecise summary” of the §51.20(1)(a)2b test for commitment (“substantial probability of physical harm”), this articulation “was not a deviation from the” correct standard. Moreover, the trial court’s finding that Lorna G.