Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

A. Ch. 51, Mental health

Milwaukee County v. E.C.H., 2019AP772, District 1, 1/14/20, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity This appeal asks: Is evidence of homelessness, by itself, sufficient to prove that a person is dangerous to himself or will become dangerous if treatment is withdrawn? And the answer is . . . we don’t know. Hiding behind the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Portage County v. L.E., 2019AP1841-FT, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Welcome to another chapter in the Wisconsin saga “once committed, always committed.” L.E. has been under commitment for 25 years. At her most recent recommitment hearing, the County offered a doctor’s testimony that “if treatment were withdrawn she’d become a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Monroe County v. D.J., 2019AP1133, 1/2/19, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Oh, this issue again. Monroe County pursued a Chapter 51 original commitment against D.J. but didn’t say which of the 5 standards of dangerousness it was proceeding under. One doctor opined that commitment was warranted under the 1st or 2nd… Read More

{ 0 comments }

COA: evidence sufficient for ch. 51 extension

La Crosse County v. J.M.A., 2018AP1258, 11/21/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity J.M.A. appeals his recommitment under ch. 51. He argues the psychiatrist who was the sole witness at his trial provided only conclusory testimony on dangerousness; the court of appeals disagrees. But first, and odd detour into waiver and standing… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Sauk County v. R.A.S., 2018AP2253, 10/31/2019, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity R.A.S. was committed after a ch. 51 jury trial. The county alleged and the court instructed on two forms of dangerousness–those in Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. and 2.d.. R.A.S. asked that the verdict form require the jury to agree on… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Waupaca v. K.E.K., 2018Ap1887, District 4, 9/26/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity This opinion infuses uncertainty, if not confusion, into the law governing circuit court competency to decide a Chapter 51 recommitment case and the substantive legal standard that courts are to apply at the recommitment stage. Circuit court competency. Section §51.20(13(g)2r provides that 21… Read More

{ 2 comments }

Waukesha County v. J.K., 2018AP616-NM, 9/3/19 (unpublished order); case activity The court of appeals can be pretty aggressive about dismissing Chapter 51 appeals for mootness. This time SCOW slapped its hand.  J.K.’s lawyer filed a no-merit notice of appeal. Before appointed counsel could file a no-merit report, and before J.K. could respond to any such… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Eric L. Vanremortel, 2018AP417, 9/4/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Vanremortel was charged with disorderly conduct for an incident in which he followed the wife of a retired police officer in her car, then repeatedly got out of his own car and shouted at her. The state… Read More

{ 0 comments }