On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 3; case activity

In this follow-up to the recent decision in State v. Alger, 2013 WI App 148, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, the court of appeals rejects two constitutional challenges to the legislation that limits the newly-adopted Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony to ch.

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. 

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity

Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)

The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.

On review of court of appeals certification; case activity

Issue (from the certification)

Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) require that a commitment petition be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and allege that a person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. Does § 980.02 additionally require that the commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is alleged in the petition as the predicate offense,

State v. Michael Alger, 2013 WI App 148, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 3; case activity

In this important decision addressing an issue that’s been percolating in ch. 980 cases, the court of appeals holds that the Daubert standard for expert testimony does not apply to any proceedings in a ch.

State v. Bradley M. Jones, 2013 WI App 151; case activity

¶1        …. Wisconsin Stat. § 980.07 (2011-12) mandates annual reexamination of persons committed to secure treatment facilities as sexually violent persons. Following the Department of Health Services’ annual reexamination, Bradley M. Jones requested and was denied appointment of an independent examiner and counsel prior to review of his petition for discharge. Under the applicable statutes,

Steve P. v. Maegan F., 2013 WI 89, dismissing review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; per curiam (Justice Prosser did not participate); case activity

This is every appellate lawyer’s nightmare–pouring your heart into an emotionally charged case presenting a provocative legal issue briefed by 5 different parties and amici and then having the supreme court declare that review was improvidently granted.

The record for this case is confidential so On Point’s explanation of what happened may be imprecise. 

Wood County Human Services v. James D., 2013AP1378, District 4, 11/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

One of the elements of protective placement is that the person has a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent, § 55.08(1)(d). The County failed to prove this element by clear and convincing evidence because its psychological expert was unable to testify that James suffered from a permanent or likely to be permanent disability,

Outagamie County v. Aaron V., 2013AP808, District 3, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence supported an extension of Aaron’s ch. 51 commitment even though Dr. Dave, the county’s expert, did not specifically testify Aaron would “decompensate” or become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn and did not provide reasons for his opinion that Aaron would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn:

¶15      ….

Winnebago County v. Donna H., 2013AP80, District 2, 7/31/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the supreme court’s recent decision in Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, the court of appeals concludes Winnebago County failed to show Donna H. is not competent to refuse medication. The applicable statute, § 55.14(1)(b), requires the County to show that the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication have been explained to the individual subject to a possible involuntary medication order.