On Point blog, page 11 of 18
SVP – Disposition: Supervised Release – Revocation – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866
For Burris: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding:
¶73. Judge Welker found that Burris disregarded the rules of his supervised release in order to satisfy his compulsive urges. Burris consumed alcohol, a drug that lowers inhibitions. He abused the privileges provided to him in order to meet a married woman and have sex with her,
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Hearing – Expert’s Report
State v. Richard A. Brown III, 2004 WI App 33, reversed on other grounds, 2005 WI 29
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, at a § 980.08 supervised release hearing, an expert’s report filed under § 980.08(3) may be introduced into evidence, though hearsay and though the author does not testify.
Holding:
¶14. …. Generally, where a party secures the services of a psychologist or other professional in support of an action,
SVP – Trial: Evidence – Misconduct, § 904.04(2)
State v. Gregory J. Franklin, 2004 WI 38, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals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;
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Procedure – Appointment of Expert for Subject, §§ 980.08(3)-(4)
State v. Dennis Thiel, 2004 WI App 225
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue1: Whether the court must appoint an examiner for the subject under § 980.08(3) when it has already appointed one under § 980.08(4).
Holding:
¶17. The parties agree that the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.08(3) requires the circuit court to appoint an examiner for the court, and we concur.
Serial Litigation Bar (Escalona-Naranjo): Applicable to SVP Commitments
State v. Thomas H. Bush (II), 2004 WI App 193, reversed in part, 2005 WI 103
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell
Issue: Whether Bush, on appeal from denial of petition for release from SVP commitment, § 980.09(2), is procedurally barred from challenging the constitutionality of his underlying commitment because he could have raised such challenge in a prior appeal.
Holding:
¶13.
SVP – Trial – Jury Instructions – Consequences of Discharge
State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2004 WI App 52, PFR filed 3/19/04
For Lombard: David Karpe
Issue: Whether, in response to a jury question during deliberations in this SVP discharge trial, the trial court was obligated to instruct that if Lombard were discharged he would still be subject to 40 years of probation / parole supervision on the underlying offense.
Holding:
¶13.
SVP – Post-Disposition: Petition for Discharge Procedure, § 980.09(2) (2004) – Probable Cause Hearing / Full Evidentiary Hearing
State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, PFR filed 7/16/04
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian
Issue: Whether an examiner’s recommendation of supervised release established probable cause that Thiel was no longer a sexually violent person and therefore supported a full evidentiary hearing on release, pursuant to § 980.09(2).
Holding:
¶15. Thiel’s claim falls under Wis. Stat. § 980.09(2), which sets forth the procedural posture for a committed individual’s petition for discharge without the approval of the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
SVP – Post-Disposition: Petition for Discharge Procedure – Delay in Implementing Remand Order of Appellate Court
State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, PFR filed 7/16/04
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian
Issue/Holding:
¶27. We now turn to the second issue on appeal-that being, whether Thiel’s due process rights were violated because the circuit court failed to initiate proceedings following remand by this court and therefore nothing occurred until Thiel initiated proceedings by writing to the court nearly ten months later.
SVP – Trial – Special Verdicts – Equal Protection
State v. Jesse J. Madison, 2004 WI App 46, PFR filed 3/12/04
For Madison: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶5. Alternatively, Madison argues that he has a constitutional right, on equal protections grounds, to a special verdict. See Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. This equal protection argument stems from an alleged disparate application of special verdicts, under Wis. Stat. § 805.12(1),
SVP – Trial – Special Verdicts – Trial Court Discretion
State v. Jesse J. Madison, 2004 WI App 46, PFR filed 3/12/04For Madison: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶3. Madison first claims that he has a statutory right to a special verdict under Wis. Stat.§ 805.12(1). See State v. Rachel, 224 Wis. 2d 571, 575, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App.