On Point: c. Evidence

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2020 WI 92, 12/18/20, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

A five-justice majority of the supreme court holds that the state does not need to present expert opinion testimony that a person subject to commitment under Chapter 980 is dangerous to others because his mental disorder makes it more likely than not that he will engage in one or more future acts of sexual violence.

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2018AP2104, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 3/17/20; case activity

Issues:

1. To prove that a person meets the criteria for commitment under Chapter 980, must the state present expert opinion testimony that the person is “dangerous” as defined under ch. 980?
2. Should the standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness in a Chapter 980 case be changed to require that a reviewing court conduct a de novo review of whether the evidence satisfies the legal standard of dangerousness?

State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2018AP2357-CRLV, review of a decision of the court of appeals denying the state’s petition for leave to appeal; case activity

Before turning to the issues presented, we’ll start with an observation about how this case might seem to affect appellate litigation in all kinds of cases, civil and criminal.

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2019 WI App 63, petition for review granted, 3/17/20, affirmed, 2020 WI 92; case activity (including briefs)

At a hearing on a committed person’s petition for discharge from a ch. 980 commitment, the state has the burden of proving the person is still a sexually violent person—that is, that the person: (1) has a mental disorder; and (2) is dangerous because that mental disorder makes it more likely than not the person will commit sexually violent offenses in the future. § 980.09(3). The court of appeals holds that even though the state needs an expert to prove the person has a mental disorder, it doesn’t need an expert to prove the person is dangerous because of the mental disorder.

State v. Scott Maher, 2010AP460, District 4, 5/26/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Maher: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Testimony from a State’s expert witness describing the ch. 980 screening process was irrelevant.

¶11      We addressed the issue of the admissibility of this same type of evidence in State v. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166,

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oliver: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

SVP – Evidence
1. Unobjected-to testimony by a state evaluator that DHS psychologists are more “conservative” in their conclusions than other SVP experts did not “cloud” the issue and therefore did not support new trial in the interest of justice,

court of appeals decision; for Kaminski:Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

SVP: Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04(2), Reliance on by Expert 
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. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: “Infrequent references to annual re-evaluation” were not “sufficiently egregious to diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict,” ¶¶20-24.

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

Issue/Holding: Testimony by a state’s expert to the effect that the only treatment program for psychopaths is at Sand Ridge did not require a new trial under the theory that it implicitly suggested commitment would be in the community’s and respondent’s best interest, ¶¶25-27 (court rejecting analogy to TPR procedure):

¶27      Wisconsin Stat.

State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245
For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Evidence that SVP respondent would be under DOC supervision if not committed under ch. 980 properly excluded as irrelevant, ¶¶8-14 (“the fact of supervision is irrelevant to whether Budd is a sexually violent person under § 980.01(7),” ¶14).The court in essence follows its statement in State v. Charles W.