On Point: 3. Burden of proof

State v. T.A.W., 2025AP437-CR, 6/3/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although the charges against T.A.W. — resisting an officer causing soft tissue injury and retail theft — are not “serious crimes” under Wis. Stat. § 969.08, which specifies procedures for pretrial release, the COA found that the State met its burden to show an important governmental interest in forcibly medicating T.A.W. to competency under the aggravated circumstances of the case.

State v. Donald L. White, 2020AP275-CR, 11/3/2022, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

We hope SCOW reviews this decision. An examiner opined that White was competent to proceed under §971.14 but refused to give her opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty. In fact, she thought White should be observed longer. The trial court excluded the examiner’s report and found White competent without it. The court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Fitzgerald, 2018AP1296-CR, 2019 WI 69, 6/13/19; case activity

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) held that a mentally ill  defendant has a constitutional right to avoid unwanted antipsychotic medication. The State can force it on him to restore his competency for trial only by proving the 4 “Sell factors.” Fitzgerald holds that §971.14 does not conform to Sell. Going forward, the State cannot obtain involuntary med orders based solely on §971.14 because it is constitutionally infirm.  The State must satisfy Sell factors. The cases where this is possible may be “rare.” Sell, 539 U.S. at 180.  Involuntary medication to restore competency to proceed should be the exception, not the rule.

State v. Andre L. Scott, 2016AP2017-CR, bypass granted 9/12/17, case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

1. Whether, despite State v. Debra A.E., 188 Wis. 2d 111, 523 N.W.2d 727 (1994), a circuit court may use §971.14(4)(b) to require a nondangerous defendant to be treated to competency against his will, and if so, whether §971.14(4)(b) is unconstitutional on its face because it does not comport with Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).

2. Whether an order requiring an inmate to be involuntarily treated to competency is a nonfinal order that should be challenged by a Wis. Stat. §809.50 petition for interlocutory appeal or a final order of a special proceeding that is appealable as a matter of right via Wis. Stat. §808.03(1).

3. Whether the court of appeals exercises its discretion erroneously when it denies a motion for relief pending appeal without explaining its reasoning.

State v. Leo E. Wanta, 224 Wis.2d 679, 592 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wanta: James M. Shellow

HOLDING: Wanta argues that Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b) is unconstitutional, because it requires proof of incompetence by clear and convincing evidence when the defendant claims that s/he is competent (vs. proof of competency by mere greater weight of evidence when the defendant claims incompetence). The court construes the challenge to be one of equal protection.