On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Asley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Mental Commitment
Trial court order of inpatient treatment supported by evidence:

¶18      Dr. Berney testified that as of the date of his examination, Ashley required inpatient treatment, but there was a substantial probability she would be ready for outpatient treatment by the time of the final hearing, which was five days later.  

court of appeals decision; for Kaminski:Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

SVP: Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04(2), Reliance on by Expert 
SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107,

Waukesha County v. Genevieve M., 2009 WI App 173
For Genevieve M.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Although a ch. 54 guardianship appeal is decided by a 3-judge and ch. 55 protective placement by a 1-judge panel, when the 2 were commenced and decided under a single trial court case number, the appeal will be decided by a 3-judge panel:

¶5        The plain language of Wis.

Dane County v. Stevenson L.J., 2009 WI App 84
For Stevenson L.J.: Ruth N. Westmont

Issue/Holding: Where Stevenson L.J. was detained on an “emergency statement” in one county (Brown), then transferred to another (Dane) before a probable cause hearing, a new emergency statement in Dane County did not establish a new 72-hour time limit for a probable cause hearing; competency over the proceeding was therefore lost:

¶12      Under the County’s argument,

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: “Infrequent references to annual re-evaluation” were not “sufficiently egregious to diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict,” ¶¶20-24.

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Testimony by a state’s expert to the effect that the only treatment program for psychopaths is at Sand Ridge did not require a new trial under the theory that it implicitly suggested commitment would be in the community’s and respondent’s best interest, ¶¶25-27 (court rejecting analogy to TPR procedure):

¶27      Wisconsin Stat.

State v. Paul A. Wilinski, 2008 WI App 170
For Wilinski: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Wisconsin courts have not yet articulated the standard for reviewing a circuit court’s order for commitment under Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(a). The State proposes that courts should review such orders under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. Wilinski seems to concede this is the appropriate standard of review.

State v. Paul A. Wilinski, 2008 WI App 170
For Wilinski: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: NGI commitment to institutional care supported by the evidence, in that

• The nature of the offense itself (violent assault coupled with threat to kill) supported a finding of significant risk of harm if Wilinski were released (¶13);
• Wilinski failed to comply with conditional release under prior NGI commitment,

State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09
For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether § 980.09 (2005-06) grants the circuit court a greater “gatekeeper role” than the prior statute in ordering an evidentiary hearing on a discharge petition.

Holding: 

¶22      The State’s premise that the new statute grants the circuit court a greater role than it played in a probable cause determination runs contrary to the development of the law.

State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09
For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶14      Unlike the previous statutory provision, the current Wis. Stat. § 980.09 does not distinguish between petitions made with or without the approval of the DHFS secretary. Furthermore, a discharge petition no longer automatically triggers a probable cause hearing. Rather, the circuit court may review the petition without a hearing,