On Point blog, page 56 of 60
SVP – Trial: Evidence – Other Crimes
State v. David J. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 136, 246 Wis.2d 233, 631 N.W.2d 240, PFR filed 5/18/01
For Wolfe: Ann T. Bowe
Issue: Whether evidence of the respondent’s arson adjudication, and institutional violations and misconduct while at an adolescent treatment center were admissible under § 904.04.
Holding:
¶37 Diagnoses of a mental disorder and dangerousness are directly foretold through past conduct.
SVP – Jury Waiver – Advisal of Right to Jury Unanimity
State v. Kerby G. Denman, 2001 WI App 96, 243 Wis. 2d 14, 626 N.W.2d 29.
For Denman: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a Ch. 980 respondent’s jury waiver requires advice of the right to a unanimous verdict.
Holding: The court “look(s) to WIS. STAT. § 980.05(2), rather than the case law governing the waiver of a the constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal cases,
SVP – Postdisposition: Expert – Right to, Re-exam
State v. Dennis R. Thiel (III), 2001 WI App 32, 241 Wis. 2d 465, 626 N.W.2d 26
For Thiel: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in refusing the indigent’s request for an independent expert on a § 980.07(1) (1997-98) reexamination.
Holding:
¶25 The first use of the word ‘may’ in WIS. STAT. § 980.07(1) (‘the person who has been committed may retain ….’) affords Thiel the option of requesting a second expert.
SVP – Qualifying Predicate Offense
State v. Aaron K. Gibbs, 2001 WI App 83, 242 Wis. 2d 640, 625 N.W.2d 666
For Gibbs: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a delinquency adjudication under former Wis. Stat. Ch. 48 (1993-94) supports a Ch. 980 petition.
Holding:
¶7 The question is whether in 1997 the circuit court had the authority under the 1997-98 version of WIS.
SVP – Postdisposition – Burden of persuasion, petition for discharge probable cause hearing
State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the trial court improperly assigned the burden of persuasion to the inmate at the § 980.09(2)(a) probable cause hearing.
Holding: The burden of persuasion is assigned to neither party at a § 908.09(2)(a) hearing, the purpose of which is simply to conduct a paper review to determine whether a full evidentiary hearing is necessary.
SVP – Postdisposition – Discharge Procedure – Right to full evidentiary hearing after “paper review”
State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the patient was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on release following the reexamination probable cause “paper review.”
Holding:
¶26 A full evidentiary hearing was unwarranted. The only evidence before the trial court indicated that the grounds for Thayer’s original WIS.
SVP – Postdisposition – Discharge Procedure – Right to counsel, timing of appointment
State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the lateness of counsel’s appointment, six days before the paper review probable cause hearing, violated due process.
Holding: Construing Thayer’s argument to raise a contention that due to lateness of the appointment, counsel “had insufficient time to prepare for the probable cause hearing,”
SVP – Substantive Due Process – Automatic SVP commitment to secure confinement
State v. Ronald Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202, PFR filed 8/27/01
For Ransdell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the automatic initial commitment to institutional care provision, § 980.06, on its face violates substantive due process.
Holding: A person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show its infirmity beyond reasonable doubt; a statute restricting liberty implicates a “strict-scrutiny” test. ¶5. Applying this test, § 980.06 does not violate due process: requiring that a commitment subject first undergo evaluation and treatment in an institutional setting before a decision is made as to supervised release is a reasonable legislative policy determination;
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Reconsideration – Newly Discovered Evidence – Assessment of Pre-Existing Information
State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155
For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial
Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release proceeding.
Holding: A motion for relief from judgment, § 980.07, may be based on newly discovered evidence,
SVP – Trial: Witnesses – Expert – Qualifications
State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.
Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.” ¶29.