On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

County of Milwaukee v. Edward S., 2001 WI App 169, PFR filed
For Edward S.: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the 14-day deadline set by § 51.20(7)(c) for final hearing is extendible when delay is caused by the respondent’s own action.

Holding: The otherwise mandatory deadline for final commitment hearing is waivable when the delay is caused by the respondent — here, firing his attorney. 

State v. Thomas Wenk, 2001 WI App 268, PFR filed 10/31/01
For Wenk: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether trial court denial of a petition for conditional release from an NGI commitment was an erroneous exercise of discretion.

Holding: Although the state expressed doubt that it had met its burden of proof, the trial court was free to disregard that view. And, although the experts recommended release upon certain conditions,

State v. Isaac H. Williams, State v. Willie Hogan, 2001 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/23/01
For Williams: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
For Hogan: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the § 980.08(1) requirement that the SVP wait 18 months after initial commitment before petitioning for supervised release violates substantive due process.

Holding:

¶7.

Reuben Adams v. Macht, 2001 WI App 10, 241 Wis. 2d 28, 623 N.W.2d 215

Issue: Whether the Wisconsin Resource Center policy prohibiting former employees from visiting the institution is enforceable against a patient seeking visits from a former employee who is also the mother of his child.

Holding: The policy is reasonable and based on legitimate security concerns.

The court pays lip service to the idea that 980 inmates are patients,

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 standard for waiver of right to counsel in a criminal proceeding applies to Ch. 980.

Holding: “… (B)ecause WIS. STAT. § 980.09(2) guarantees the right to counsel at the probable cause hearing, the same standards and procedures for resolving right to counsel issues in a criminal context should apply to the § 980.09(2)(a) probable cause hearing.”

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.