On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Jackson County v. T.A.L., 2021AP499, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.A.L.’s transfer from outpatient status to a locked inpatient unit based on his medical needs didn’t violate the requirements of § 51.35.

Winnebago County v. J.C.S., 2021AP354, District 2, 8/4/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence presented at J.C.S.’s final commitment hearing was “just enough” to prove J.C.S. was a proper subject of treatment, one of the elements necessary to justify a ch. 51 commitment order, § 51.20(1)(a)1.

Waukesha County v. M.J.S., 20221AP105-FT, District 2, 7/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under § 51.20(11)(a), a demand for a jury trial must be made “48 hours in advance of the time set for final hearing,” if notice of final hearing was provided to the subject individual or his or her lawyer. Applying Marathon County v. R.J.O., 2020 WI App 20, 392 Wis. 2d 157, 943 N.W.2d 898, the “time set for final hearing” is the original hearing date, not the date set after an adjournment.

Trempealeau County v. B.K., 2020AP1166, District 3, 7/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.K. (“Brian”) argues he was denied procedural due process because he was not given particularized notice of which standard of dangerousness the County intended to prove at the final commitment hearing. He also contends the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to prove he was dangerous. The court of appeals rejects with both claims.

Rusk County v. A.A., 2019AP839 & 2020AP1580, District 3, 7/20/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (2019AP839; 2020AP1580)

A.A. appeals two recommitment orders, raising multiple constitutional issues as to both and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness as to one of the cases and the admission of hearsay evidence regarding the other. The court of appeals acknowledges that A.A.’s constitutional claims raise “important” and “thorny” issues about recommitment petition pleading requirements and the constitutionality of recommitment proceedings, but it it resolves both cases on the evidentiary issues. (¶¶15, 31-32).

Outagamie County DHHS v. M.D.H., 2020AP86, District 3, 7/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence at M.D.H.’s final commitment hearing proved he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.d.

Marathon County v. T.A.T., 2019AP1709, District 3, 6/29/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The testimony of the the three witnesses called by the County provided sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that T.A.T. (“Travis”) was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a.

State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals granted 6/16/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue Presented (from the PFR):

When a defendant has been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in two separate cases and is subject to two separate commitment orders, does the circuit court have authority to run the terms of commitment consecutive to one another?

Outagamie County v. X.Z.B., 2020AP2058, 6/22/2121, District 3, (1 judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This case involves the recommitment of a protectively placed person based on §51.20(1)(a)2.c., the 3rd standard of dangerousness.  The court of appeals reversed the circuit courts’ recommitment order for insufficient evidence. And, for the second time in one week, it held that when circuit courts fail to make the requisite factual findings for a commitment that has expired, the remedy is reversal not remand for further fact-finding.

Eau Claire County v. J.M.P., 2020AP2014-FT, 6/22/21, District 3; (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity

A month ago District 3 reversed the recommitment order in this case because the circuit court had violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. That is, the circuit court ordered a recommitment without making specific factual findings tied to one or more the standards of dangerousness in §51.20(1)(a)2. Thus, the court of appeals remanded the case and ordered the required factfinding. Upon reconsideration, the court of appeals has issued a new decision holding that the correct remedy is outright reversal.