On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. Richard A. Brown (II), 2002 WI App 260, PFR filed 10/22/02
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶16. Brown next argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike a prospective juror for cause and that he was prejudiced by being forced to use one of his peremptory strikes to remove him. Although a few years ago,

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue: Whether a respondent is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges prescribed by § 972.03, because of the potential for life-long custody.

Holding: Because an SVP respondent is entitled to periodic review, the analogy to a life sentence fails, and peremptory challenges are regulated by § 805.08(3) (three challenges,

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue: Whether the state’s petition was timely, where the respondent had already completed his sentence on the qualifying conviction but was serving concurrent sentences with the controlling sentence a non-qualifying conviction.

Holding: State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1997) (petition timely filed where respondent serving consecutive sentences) extended to concurrent sentences:

¶17. 

State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02

Issue/Holding:

¶14. Wisconsin Const. art. I, § 7, grants criminal defendants the right to a trial “by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” Tainter claims this provision conflicts with Wis. Stat. § 980.02(4) and (5),

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue: Whether a probation and parole agent was properly allowed to give an opinion regarding the likelihood of the respondent reoffending.

Holding:

¶29. The fact that Kittman was not a psychologist or mental health specialist did not preclude his testimony. Under Wis. Stat. § 907.02 (1997-98), relevant experience,

State ex rel Edwin C. West v. Bartow, 2002 WI App 42
For West: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether the court had discretion to order change of venue from Winnebago (county of current SVP confinement) to Milwaukee (county of commitment), on habeas challenge to the commitment.

Holding: Venue was proper in Winnebago under § 801.50(4)(b) (where petitioner is being restrained); the trial court’s transfer mistakenly relied on § 801.50(4)(a) (where petitioner was convicted or sentenced,

State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02
For Tainter: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The trial court properly exercised discretion in admitting into evidence actuarial instruments (by determining that they were of the type commonly relied on by experts to assess sex offender risk; and by allowing Tainter to cross-examine on the instruments). ¶20. In Wisconsin, trial courts have a limited “gatekeeper”

State v. James G. Langenbach, 2001 WI App 222

For Langenbach: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state may call a defendant to testify, as an adverse witness, at Phase II of an NGI trial, following Phase I guilty plea.

Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t necessarily result in loss of fifth amendment rights: The privilege continues at least until sentencing, ¶9; moreover, the privilege continues during the direct appeal,

State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866For Burris: Joseph L. SommersIssue: Whether a condition of supervised release, that Burris “avoid all conduct … that is not in the best interest of the public’s welfare or your rehabilitation” provided adequate notice that obtaining a prescription for Viagra would subject him to revocation.

Holding:

¶53.

County of Dunn v. Goldie H., 2001 WI 102, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Goldie H.: John E. Joyce

Issue: Whether a ch. 55 subject has a right to a hearing before the circuit court orders continuation of protective placement; and whether the circuit court must make findings of fact to support such an order.

Holding:

¶6. We hold that a person is entitled to a hearing on the record before his or her protective placement is continued,