≡ Menu

Evidence supported dangerousness finding

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2017AP1313-FT, District 3, 11/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was sufficient evidence at D.J.W.’s commitment trial to establish he met the standard for dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.d.

D.J.W. argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to establish a recent failure to care for himself or a probability of imminent harm if he was not treated. (¶12). The court disagrees based on testimony of the two doctors called by the County.

The doctors noted that D.J.W.’s medical records indicated he had a prior history of both aggressive behavior and hospitalization over mental health concerns; that D.J.W. questioned the point of living while he was hospitalized and had refused medication and treatment; and that D.J.W. would, consistent with his past behavior, be unable to care for himself or properly socialize due to his delusions and unpredictable behavior if his acute schizophrenia were left untreated. Both doctors opined, based on the records and their expertise, that a substantial probability existed that harm will imminently ensue unless D.J.W. receives the necessary treatment. (¶¶15-17). The circuit court was entitled to give the doctors’ opinions more weight than it did to D.J.W.’s testimony that, while he refused medication, he had voluntarily sought treatment and that his illness would not lead him to hurt himself or others. (¶¶7-8, 10, 17).

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment