On Point: 1. Original commitment

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,

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.

¶13  Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.  

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles O.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harlan H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorna G.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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.

Outagamie County v. Paul S., 2011AP920, District 3, 9/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paul S.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 51.15(5) provides an individual may “not be detained by the law enforcement officer or other person and the facility for more than a total of 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” without a hearing.  

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,

Brown County v. Quinn M., 2010AP3162, District 3, 4/26/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Quinn M.: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support extension of ch. 51 commitment upheld. 1. Mental illness. Expert testified that she was certain Quinn had a mental illness, though given his history of drug and alcohol use she could not provide a specific diagnosis with certainty.

Barron County v. Dennis H., 2010AP1026, District 3, 10/19/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Dennis H.: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Evidence held sufficient to support finding of dangerousness.

1) Recent overt act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm. A psychologist testified that Dennis at times displayed aggressive behavior (“he changes at the snap of the finger and will become highly excitable,

Milwaukee County v. Earl Z., 2010AP704, District 1, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earl Z.: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

County appeal of dismissal of emergency detention at probable cause stage is moot, where facts supporting that requested detention are no longer operative. Exceptions to mootness — appellate court may reach merits if the issue is sufficiently important or likely repetitious but evasive of review —