On Point blog, page 49 of 60
SVP – Trial: Evidence — Disposition Alternatives – Criminal Justice System Supervision Irrelevant
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2006 WI 78, affirming 2005 WI App 62, 2005 WI App 62
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether evidence of probation supervision was relevant to future dangerousness, and therefore should have been admitted into evidence.
Issue:
¶41 … (T)he plain language of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) makes the existence of a mental disorder—not any extrinsic factors—the first step in determining dangerousness and the substantial probability of the person engaging in future acts of sexual violence.
SVP – Post-Disposition — Failure to Obtain Residential Placement on Court Order for Supervised Release
State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding1: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release did not “shock the conscience,” hence did not violate substantive due process, where the failure occurred despite good-faith, substantial efforts to comply with the order, ¶31.
Issue/Holding2: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release violated procedural due process.
Constitutionality of Ch. 980 – Absence of Proof of “Imminent” Danger
State v. Terry L. Olson, 2006 WI App 32, PFR filed 3/16
For Olson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional because the SVP definition of “dangerousness” is not linked to imminent risk.
Holding:
¶5 We deem Olson’s reliance on Lessard misplaced. In 2002, our own supreme court considered a challenge to Wis.
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Petition – Probable Cause Hearing, § 980.09(2) (2001-02)
State v. Robert L. Kruse, 2006 WI App 179, PFR filed 9/11/06
For Kruse: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1:
¶2 We agree with Kruse that at a probable cause hearing under Wis. Stat. §980.09(2)(a), the role of the circuit court is to determine whether there is plausible testimony or evidence that, if believed, would establish probable cause that the petitioner is no longer a sexually violent person.
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Petition – Probable Cause Hearing, § 980.09(2)
State v. Christopher L. Combs, 2006 WI App 137, PFR filed, 7/20/06
For Combs: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, on a petition for discharge of an SVP commitment, § 980.09(2)(b), the trial court can refuse to hold a hearing where, although the court-appointed expert concludes that the person was not sufficiently predisposed to sexual violence to meet the definition of a sexually violent person,
SVP – Post-Disposition – Petition for Discharge Procedure, § 980.09(2)(a) (2006) – Timely Probable Cause Hearing, Due Process
State v. Deryl B. Beyer, 2006 WI 2, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 167, cert. denied, Beyer v. Wisconsin, 537 U.S. 1210 (2003)
For Beyer: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue1: Whether due process was violated by delay of over 22 months between the time the first annual periodic examination report was provided to the circuit court under § 980.07 and the circuit court’s probable cause hearing under § 980.09(2)(a).
SVP – Pretrial: Evaluation — Prosecutorial Meddling in Process
State v. Jonathan Bell, 2006 WI App 30
For Bell: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue: Whether intervention of the local prosecutor to obtain a second DOC evaluation, which resulted in a referral for SVP commitment after the first DOC evaluation determined insufficient likelihood of reoffending, violated ch. 980 or due process.
Holding:
¶11 Our supreme court defined the scope of the district attorney’s authority in Byers.
SVP – Supervised Release Determination, Standard of Review on Appeal
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8. The issue presented by the parties in the instant case is whether a circuit court’s denial of a chapter 980 petition for supervised release should be classified as a determination of a question of law or as an exercise of circuit court discretion.
SVP – Supervised Release Determination, Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where the only witness at Brown’s supervised release hearing was an expert who supported release, and the evidence indisputably showed favorable response to treatment, the State failed to meet its burden of proof that Brown should not be released,
SVP – Postdisposition – Petition for Supervised Release, § 980.08(4), Generally
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶11. According to Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4), the circuit court starts in the position of having to grant a petition for supervised release. The circuit court does not have to grant the petition if the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person is still a sexually violent person and that it is substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence if the person is not continued in institutional care.