Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

4. Trial

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2018AP2104, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 3/17/20; case activity Issues: To prove that a person meets the criteria for commitment under Chapter 980, must the state present expert opinion testimony that the person is “dangerous” as defined under ch. 980? Should the standard of review… Read More

{ 0 comments }

SCOW: Precedent? What precedent? ¯\_(ヅ)_/¯

State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2018AP2357-CRLV, review of a decision of the court of appeals denying the state’s petition for leave to appeal; case activity Before turning to the issues presented, we’ll start with an observation about how this case might seem to affect appellate litigation in all kinds of cases, civil and criminal. As… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2019 WI App 63, petition for review granted, 3/17/20; case activity (including briefs) At a hearing on a committed person’s petition for discharge from a ch. 980 commitment, the state has the burden of proving the person is still a sexually violent person—that is, that the person: (1) has a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jonathan Phillips, 2010AP1490, District 4, 4/26/12 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Phillips: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; originally recommended for publication, changed per order 5/1/12 Although admittedly “inconsistent” in the way it defines “mental disorder,” when read “as a whole,” the pattern jury instruction for ch. 980… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Paschall Lee Sanders, 2011 WI App 125 (recommended for publication); for Sanders: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity The definitions of “mental disorder” in since-amended pattern instruction Wis JI—Criminal 2502 (2009), though concededly contradictory, didn’t prevent from being tried the issue of whether Sanders qualified for commitment as a sexually violent person: ¶14      As we… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scott Maher, 2010AP460, District 4, 5/26/11 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Maher: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Testimony from a State’s expert witness describing the ch. 980 screening process was irrelevant. ¶11      We addressed the issue of the admissibility of this same type of evidence in State v… Read More

{ 0 comments }

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oliver: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. SVP – Evidence 1. Unobjected-to testimony by a state evaluator that DHS psychologists are more “conservative” in their conclusions than other SVP experts did not “cloud” the issue and therefore did not support… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175

court of appeals decision; for Kaminski:Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate SVP: Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04(2), Reliance on by Expert  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… Read More

{ 0 comments }