On Point blog, page 13 of 18
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Petition — Probable Cause Hearing
State v. Henry Pocan, 2003 WI App 233
For Pocan: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Pocan established probable cause for a discharge hearing where the psychologist conducting the reevaluation and using actuarial tables unavailable at the time of original commitment found no substantial probability of reoffending:
¶11. The State argues that Wis. Stat. ch. 980 thus requires the court to focus on progress or improvement in Pocan’s condition.
SVP – Pretrial Release
State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03
For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer
Issue: Whether ch. 980 violates due process and/or equal protection because it doesn’t allow for pretrial release.
Holding:
¶14. We decline to address Virlee’s due process and equal protection arguments because he fails to establish, and we do not see, how the statute’s lack of a provision for pretrial release affects the trial court’s judgment.
SVP – “Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior”
State v. Ray A. Schiller, 2003 WI App 195
For Schiller: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶11. However, a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” is not about whether a person has the ability to make choices….¶12. The Crane Court further indicated that we must not only consider whether the person has the ability to make choices, but the degree to which those choices are driven by a mental disorder: [S]erious difficulty in controlling behavior …
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence – Different Expert Opinions
State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2003 WI App 163, affirmed, other grounds, 2004 WI 95
For Lombard: David R. Karpe
Issue/Holding: Evidence sufficient to support commitment though only one state’s expert supported commitment against three defense experts:
¶21 … The State’s expert, a psychologist who evaluated Lombard for the purpose of determining whether proceedings under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 should be instituted,
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence – Actuarial Data
State v. James Lalor, 2003 WI App 68, PFR filed 4/15/03
For Lalor: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding: Evidence based on actuarial instruments (RRASOR; PCL-R; MnSOST-R; V-RAG), to the effect that of people with similar scores about 50% reoffend within five years and 70% within ten years, supports finding of substantial likelihood to engage in sexual violence. ¶¶15-25.
SVP – Substantive Due Process – Jury Finding of Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior
State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision
(Affirmed on habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005))
For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional by failing to adequately narrow the class of commitment subjects to those with serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior.
SVP – Trial – Jury Instructions – Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior
State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision
(Affirmed on other grounds, habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005))
For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the jury instructions adequately conveyed the requirement of mental disorder causing serious difficulty in controlling behavior.
SVP Commitments – Evidence: Issue Preclusion & Attack on Qualifying Conviction
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.
SVP Commitment: Claim/Issue Preclusion – Prior Dismissal of Petition at Trial for Insufficient Proof
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.
Holding:
¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,
SVP: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to Obtain Expert – Lack of Prejudice
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The trial court’s rejection of respondent’s post-commitment proffer of an expert, in support of a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing an expert, is sustained, due in particular to the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered expert would not have altered the outcome: “that judge,