On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 227 Wis.2d 316, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999), afffirming and remanding 221 Wis.2d 401, 585 N.W.2d 637 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Sprosty: T. Christopher Kelley, Thomas, Kelly, Habermehl & Mays.

Issue/Holding:

¶3 We conclude that a circuit court, in its discretion, may consider the availability of facilities to house or to treat a sexual predator under Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4). However,

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

Issue/Holding: An 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,

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a juvenile adjudication is admissible in a Ch.980 proceeding, § 938.35(1) notwithstanding.

Holding: A juvenile adjudication is admissible.

§ 938.35(1) expressly prohibits admissibility of a juvenile court disposition except for certain enumerated exceptions which don’t include Ch. 980 proceedings.

State v. Tory L. Rachel, 224 Wis.2d 571, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Tory L. Rachel appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court ruling that the findings and conclusions of a court-appointed expert are subject to discovery in a ch. 980, STATS., proceeding. Because the rules of civil procedure, chs. 801 to 847,

State v. Harry S. Bernstein, 231 Wis.2d 392, 605 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bernstein: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: After the state requests then withdraws a request for jury in a Ch. 980 proceeding, must trial to the court be premised on the respondent’s personal consent to this withdrawal?

Holding: Under § 980.05(2) the respondent’s consent to the state’s withdrawn assertion of jury trial need not be personal,

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the probable cause hearing was held within 72 hours of filing of the Ch. 980 petition, as required by § 980.04(2).

Holding: The trial court’s finding that the hearing was held within 72 hours of filing, exclusive of the weekend, is not clearly erroneous.

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding: Prediction of future dangerousness may be made of a juvenile in a Ch. 980 proceeding.

The state’s experts assessed Matthew’s dangerousness by using the “Doren criteria,” which were developed through research involving adults. Moreover, Matthew adduced evidence “that juveniles have a lower propensity to reoffend in sexual violence situations.”

Reuben Adams v. Bartow, 330 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2003), denying habeas relief in State v. Adams, 223 Wis. 2d 60, 588 N.W.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Adams: Samuel Arena (Foley & Lardner)

Issue: Whether the state court affirmance of Adams’ commitment unreasonably applied Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) or Foucha v.

State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Randall: Waring Fincke

Issue/Holding: The trial court properly rejected requested instruction that the State must prove “a level of present danger which cannot be managed safely in the community under any set of reasonable conditions,” and instead properly gave an instruciton that the State must prove that “Randall cannot be safely discharged or released without [sic] a danger to himsel for others.”

State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Randall: Waring Fincke

Issue/Holding:

Randall proposed to ask the jury, “Is there any medical justification for the Petitioner’s continued confinement at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute or any other in-patient mental health facility?” The trial court, holding that the State did not have to prove a therapeutic justification, refused to submit the requested instruction.