On Point: c. Evidence

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

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence as to the “screening process” for referring SVP cases, which had the effect of informing the jury that fewer than 5% of eligible sex offenders are selected for commitment proceedings.

Holding:

¶16   We need not conclude, as Budd urges,

State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07
For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18      Smalley notes that the actuarial instruments fail to take an individual’s mental disorder into account, and that they therefore predict dangerousness in general, rather than dangerousness due to mental disorder. He argues that because a jury in a Wis. Stat. ch.

State v. Steven C. Feldmann, 2007 WI App 35, PFR filed 3/23/07
For Feldmann: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The ch. 980 omission of required proof of a recent overt act of sexual violence does not violate equal protection, as compared with the ch. 51 mental health commitment requirement of proof of a recent overt act demonstrating dangerousness.

The supreme court refused to impose such requirement under ch.

State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07
For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: State SVP expert’s unobjected-to misstatement of test for measuring reoffense risk (“more likely than not” means “any chance greater than zero” rather then more than 50%) didn’t support reversal in the interest of justice:

¶10      First, Dr. Jurek’s statement was an isolated occurrence in a three-day trial.

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2006 WI 78, affirming 2005 WI App 62, 2005 WI App 62
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether evidence of probation supervision was relevant to future dangerousness, and therefore should have been admitted into evidence.

Issue:

¶41      … (T)he plain language of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) makes the existence of a mental disorder—not any extrinsic factors—the first step in determining dangerousness and the substantial probability of the person engaging in future acts of sexual violence.

State v. Gregory J. Franklin, 2004 WI 38, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Franklin: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶16. In order to be admissible in a ch. 980 proceeding, all evidence must be relevant and that relevance must not be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Wis. Stat. § 904.01; Wis. Stat. § 904.03;

State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03
For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer

Issue/Holding: Barring introduction of the post-petition grant of sentence credit was proper: this evidence “would have been irrelevant to whether the State filed its petition within ninety days of Virlee’s release and would have confused the jury on this issue.” ¶19.

State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2002 WI 78, affirming as modified, 2001 WI App 251, 248 Wis. 2d 237, 635 N.W.2d 787
For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether, given the constitutional protections afforded Ch. 980 respondents, issue preclusion applies so as to prevent Sorenson from attacking the reliability of his qualifying conviction with evidence that the complainant subsequently recanted.

Holding:

¶22.

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 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”