On Point: H. Ch. 980, SVPs

State v. Ronald Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202, PFR filed 8/27/01
For Ransdell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the automatic initial commitment to institutional care provision, § 980.06, on its face violates substantive due process.

Holding: A person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show its infirmity beyond reasonable doubt; a statute restricting liberty implicates a “strict-scrutiny” test. ¶5. Applying this test, § 980.06 does not violate due process: requiring that a commitment subject first undergo evaluation and treatment in an institutional setting before a decision is made as to supervised release is a reasonable legislative policy determination;

State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155
For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial
Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release proceeding.
Holding: A motion for relief from judgment, § 980.07, may be based on newly discovered evidence,

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.” ¶29.

State ex rel. Ruven Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, reconsideration denied2002 WI 12, reversing unpublished court of appeals order
For Seibert: Gregory P. Seibold; amicus brief: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School
Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case presents two issues. The first issue is whether an indigent sexually violent person, as defined by Wis.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a psychologist must be licensed in Wisconsin to provide expert opinion in a Ch. 980 proceeding.

Holding: No: “the standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony in this case is the general one, namely, whether it will be helpful to the trier of fact, so long as the expert is qualified by knowledge,

State v. Keith Alan VanBronkhorst, 2001 WI App 190
For VanBronkhorst: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether revocation of supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment was properly based on an uncharged rule violation.

Holding:

¶9 … “(P)rocedural due process protections afforded in probation or parole revocation proceedings apply to supervised release revocation proceedings under ch. 980. “…¶15. Notice to comply with due process requirements must be given sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that a defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the commitment subject has a right to present an independent medical report at a petition for discharge probable cause hearing, § 980.09(2)(a).

Holding:  Although a Ch. 980 patient does have the right submit an independent medical report to the court, ¶¶6-13, Wis Stat..

State v. Dennis R. Thiel (I), 2000 WI 67, 235 Wis. 2d 823, 612 N.W.2d 94, on certification from court of appeals
For Thiel: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the ch. 980 respondent waived his objection to insufficient proof by absence of objection.

Holding: “(T)he subject of a commitment petition under ch. 980 is not required to voice an objection to the allegations contained in the petition….

State v. Anthony D.B., 2000 WI 94, ¶11, 237 Wis. 2d 1, 614 N.W.2d 435
For Anthony D.B.: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether a circuit court has authority, on a Ch. 980 commitment, to order involuntary medication.

Holding: “Because those individuals committed under ch. 980 are defined as ‘patients’ in Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1), we hold that the statutory provision in § 51.61(1)(g),

State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether the state’s pretrial failure to disclose that its witness used the RRASOR screening instrument to evaluate Pletz violated his discovery rights.

Holding: Pletz waived any discovery objection by not promptly objecting, given that he was provided this information before the witness testified. ¶26. Moreover,