Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

d. Expert

SVP Commitment – Use Of Actuarials

State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07 For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶18      Smalley notes that the actuarial instruments fail to take an individual’s mental disorder into account, and that they therefore predict dangerousness in general, rather than dangerousness due to mental disorder. He argues that because… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07 For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: State SVP expert’s unobjected-to misstatement of test for measuring reoffense risk (“more likely than not” means “any chance greater than zero” rather then more than 50%) didn’t support reversal in the interest of justice: ¶10      First… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue: Whether a probation and parole agent was properly allowed to give an opinion regarding the likelihood of the respondent reoffending. Holding: ¶29. The fact that Kittman was not a psychologist or mental health specialist did not preclude his testimony. Under Wis. Stat… Read More

{ 0 comments }

SVP- Trial: Evidence — Actuarial Instruments

State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02 For Tainter: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The trial court properly exercised discretion in admitting into evidence actuarial instruments (by determining that they were of the type commonly relied on by experts to assess sex offender risk; and by allowing Tainter… Read More

{ 0 comments }

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 …… Read More

{ 0 comments }

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… Read More

{ 0 comments }

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/Holding: Prediction of future dangerousness may be made of a juvenile in a Ch. 980 proceeding. The state’s experts assessed Matthew’s dangerousness by using the “Doren criteria,” which were developed through research involving… Read More

{ 0 comments }