On Point blog, page 6 of 6
Chapter 51 defense win! Court of appeals rejects 3 doctors’ opinions to find insufficient evidence of dangerousness
Chippewa County v. M.M., 2017AP1325, 5/1/18, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
You don’t see this very often. A jury found M.M. mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under §51.20(1)(a)2.c based on testimony by not 1, not 2, but 3 doctors–all of whom said that M.M.’s paranoia and conduct would cause others to feel fearful and threatened and possibly assault him in an effort to protect themselves. This idea that M.M. was “indirectly” dangerous to himself did not wash with the court of appeals. It reversed and also rejected the County’s claim that M.M.’s appeal from this 6-month commitment was moot.
SCOW says prisoner wasn’t prejudiced by appearing before jury in prison garb flanked by uniformed gaurds
Winnebago County v. J.M., 4/18/18, 2018 WI 37, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP619, case activity.
This opinion will interest lawyers who handle Chapter 51 cases and appellate lawyers of all stripes. It establishes that persons undergoing Chapter 51 mental commitments are entitled to the effective assistance of counsel and formally adopts the Strickland test for ineffective assistance. It further holds that, due to the overwhelming evidence of dangerousness in this case, J.M. was not prejudiced when his counsel failed to object to him appearing before the jury wearing prison clothes accompanied by uniformed guards–even as he testified. Of particular interest to appellate lawyers, SCOW granted a motion to strike significant parts of Winnebago County’s oral argument because its lawyer asserted facts outside the appellate record.
Can Wisconsin medicate prisoners against their will without first finding them dangerous?
Winnebago County v. C.S., 2016AP1955, 8/16/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.S. argues that §51.61(1)(g) is unconstitutional because it allows the government to administer involuntary medication to a prisoner without a finding of dangerousness. The court of appeals elected not to decide the issue due to mootness, but that seems like a mistake.
Expiration of ch. 51 commitment made appeal moot, despite continuing restriction on gun possession
Dunn County v. Dennis M., 2014AP2579, District 3, 6/16/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the fact Dennis M. can’t possess a firearm as a result of a prior involuntary commitment order, his appeal from that order is moot because he entered into a voluntary stipulation to recommitment that has expired and not been renewed.
Evidence was sufficient to establish substantial probability that ch. 51 respondent would harm himself
Milwaukee County v. Andy S., 2014AP1885, District 1, 1/13/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence was sufficient to prove dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a., as it showed Andy “[e]vidence[d] a substantial probability of physical harm to himself … as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.”
Ch. 51 appeal is moot
Milwaukee County v. Rebecca G., 2014AP359, District 1, 9/3/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rebecca’s appeal of her ch. 51 commitment is dismissed as moot because the six-month commitment order expired while the appeal was pending and the County didn’t seek an extension.
Time for holding probable cause hearing under § 51.20(7)(a) runs from time of arrival at hosptial, not mental health unit within hospital
Ozaukee County v. Mark T.J., 2014AP479, District 2, 8/27/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The failure to hold an initial hearing within 72 hours of Mark’s arrival at the hospital where he was detained deprived the circuit court of competency to order an initial commitment order under ch. 51. But his appeal from that initial commitment order is moot because he stipulated to recommitment and vacating the initial commitment would have no practical effect.
Court of appeals applies “law of the case” doctrine to extensions of Chapter 51 commitments.
Polk County Human Services Dep’t v. Boe H., 2013AP1719, District 3, 1/14/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This appeal turns on the court of appeals’ application of the law of the case doctrine, so it’s necessary to recap some procedural history.
After a jury found Boe mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under the “fifth standard”, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, the circuit court committed him to the DHS for 6 months.
Appeal from expired original commitment dismissed as moot
Manitowoc Co. HSD v. Tammy L.C., No. 2010AP118, District II, 7/14/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tammy L.C.: Matthew S. Pinix
Mootness – Discharge from Civil Commitment
Appeal of commitment order is dismissed as moot where appellant has been discharged and no extension sought.
Mootness raises a question of policy, not jurisdiction, and the court dismissed the appeal only after satisfying itself that the underlying issue isn’t recurrent but,