On Point: H. Ch. 980, SVPs

Edwin C. West v. Macht, 2000 WI App 134, 237 Wis. 2d 265, 614 N.W.2d 34

Issue: Whether living unit reassignment of a Ch. 980 subject was made in retaliation for his exercise of his constitutional right to petition on grievances.

Holding: A commitment subject has a protected interest against being punished for exercising first amendment rights, ¶15; however, those rights may be validly restricted if “reasonably related to legitimate therapeutic and institutional interests.”

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

Issue: Whether letters from DSM-IV committee members, regarding the impact of an assault on a diagnosis of pedophilia, were properly admitted.

Holding: A basis for an expert opinion, otherwise hearsay, is admissible if of “a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field…. The letters relied on here,

State v. Frederick L. Pharm, 2000 WI App 167, 238 Wis. 2d 97, 617 N.W.2d 163
For Pharm: Jack E. Schairer

Issue: Whether conviction under the since-repealed statute of indecent behavior with a child may serve as a predicate offense for a Ch. 980 commitment.

Holding: “(T)he legislature clearly intended to include, within the definition of ‘sexually violent offense,’ the conduct prohibited under a previous version of a statute enumerated in Wis.

State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Although evidence of volitional impairment is required and in this bench trial the trial court erred in commenting to the contrary, ¶35, the court in fact found the existence of such evidence, ¶36.

State v. Frederick L. Pharm, 2000 WI App 167, 238 Wis. 2d 97, 617 N.W.2d 163
For Pharm: Jack E. Schairer

Issue: Whether Pharm waived objection to the prosecutor’s authorization to file a Ch. 980 petition.

Holding: Pharm’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s filing the petition without going through the Department of Justice under §§ 990.015 and 980.02(1) waived the issue, ¶9.

State v. Frank Curiel, 227 Wis.2d 389, 597 N.W.2d 697 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Curiel: Jack. C. Hoag, Sedor & Hoag

Holding: “¶6. …. We hold that appellate court review of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in ch. 980 proceedings should be that standard applied in criminal cases.” Curiel argues that the standard should be a mixed question of law and fact. The court holds that,

State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Holding: For fact-specific reasons, the state established probable cause to proceed with this 980 case; bindover is established by more than reliance on inadmissible hearsay.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 227 Wis.2d 316, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999), afffirming and remanding 221 Wis.2d 401, 585 N.W.2d 637 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Sprosty: T. Christopher Kelley, Thomas, Kelly, Habermehl & Mays.

Issue/Holding:

¶3 We conclude that a circuit court, in its discretion, may consider the availability of facilities to house or to treat a sexual predator under Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4). However,

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

Issue/Holding: An 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. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a juvenile adjudication is admissible in a Ch.980 proceeding, § 938.35(1) notwithstanding.

Holding: A juvenile adjudication is admissible.

§ 938.35(1) expressly prohibits admissibility of a juvenile court disposition except for certain enumerated exceptions which don’t include Ch. 980 proceedings.