On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. Eric James Hendrickson, 2010AP1181, District 3/4, 3/10/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hendrickson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Under State v. Laxton, 2002 WI 82, 254 Wis. 2d 185, 647 N.W.2d 784, proof of a mental disorder implicitly proves requisite risk of sexually violent recidivism (“serious difficulty” controlling behavior). Therefore, “direct evidence” of such difficulty,

Waukesha County v. Kathleen R. H., 2010AP2571-FT, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The evidence supported ch. 51 mental health recommitment for a period of 12 months.

¶8        Here, Kathleen misconstrues WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(am) as requiring proof, apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.  

Rock County v. Donald G., 2010AP2444, District 4, 2/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity

Concededly proper placement at Mendota under concurrent chs. 51 (mental health commitment) and 55 (protective placement) needn’t account for future termination should ch. 51 commitment later be amended. The placement order complies with § 55.18(3)(e)(1), and the circut court isn’t obligated to “address hypothetical scenarios in its order continuing protective placement.”

State v. Kenneth R. Parrish, 2010AP809, District 1, 2/15/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Parrish: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Parrish BiC; State Resp.; Reply

SVP – Petition for Discharge – Request for Independent Examiner

Parrish’s failure to unequivocally request appointment of an independent examiner dooms his argument on appeal that the trial court “prematurely dismissed his petition for discharge (§ 980.09) without first appointing an examiner,

Oneida County v. Michael B., 2010AP002216-FT, District 3, 2/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Michael B.: Lora B. Cerone. SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Mental Recommitment – Instruction on Dangerousness

The following oral jury instruction didn’t impermissibly direct the jury to find dangerousness, on trial for mental recommitment: “This is a recommitment proceeding, therefore, the law requires that the requirement of a recent act,

State v. Lee Alexander Brown, 2010AP970, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brown: Russell D. Bohach; case activity; Brown BiC; State Resp.

The court holds that Brown knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at trial on his sexually violent person petition.  Although there is a question as to whether the right to counsel under the 6th amendment and Art.

decision below: unpublished; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD. Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point):

Whether, as a matter of statutory construction, due process and equal protection, the burden of proof on a § 980.08(4)(cg) petition for supervised release of a sexually violent release is on the State.

A technical issue, but one significant to ch. 980 practice. The issue was decided adversely in State v.

7th circuit decision; habeas review of State v. Martin, No. 06AP2413

Habeas – Filing Deadline – SVP

Martin’s habeas challenge to denial of his ch. 980 petition for discharge isn’t time-barred by the fact he could have raised the same challenge to his original commitment. Discharge typically requires a new determination of whether the SVP’s condition has “changed,” but Martin’s discharge litigation instead turned on an “exceptional”

Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (recommended for publication); for Joseph S.: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Failure of trial court to warn guardianship respondent of possibility of removal from courtroom for disruptive behavior prior to ordering his removal deprived court of competency to proceed.

¶5        A determination that a person “is incompetent … is as difficult a judgment as a judge is called upon to make,” and thus the legislature has adopted procedural requirements “to mitigate the chances of error.”  Byrn v.

State v. Richard D. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166 (recommended for publication); for Sugden: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; Sugden BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Newly Discovered Evidence – Test – Generally

¶14      In order to be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Sugden must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the evidence is,