Categories
1. Original commitment 3. Civil Commitments 45. WI Court of Appeals 8. Appeals A. Ch. 51, Mental health a. Constitutional challenges a. Forfeiture of issues b. Recent acts/threats C. Unpublished Opinions f. 51.20(1)(a)2. Dangerousness

Evidence supported commitment under 2nd standard, due process challenge forfeited

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 […]
Source: WI Public Defenders – On Point
Evidence supported commitment under 2nd standard, due process challenge forfeited

Categories
1. Original commitment 3. Civil Commitments 45. WI Court of Appeals A. Ch. 51, Mental health a. Constitutional challenges C. Unpublished Opinions d. Can't meet needs e. Fifth standard f. 51.20(1)(a)2. Dangerousness

COA: ch. 51 jury doesn’t have to agree on whether you’re dangerous to self, others, etc.

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 […]
Source: WI Public Defenders – On Point
COA: ch. 51 jury doesn’t have to agree on whether you’re dangerous to self, others, etc.

Categories
1. Appeals 1. Original commitment 26. Sufficiency of evidence 3. Civil Commitments A. Ch. 51, Mental health f. 51.20(1)(a)2. Dangerousness Important Posts K. Standards of Review Pending in SCOW

SCOW will review the petitioner’s burden on dangerousness in ch. 51 cases

Marathon County v. D.K., 2017AP2217, petition for review granted 7/10/19; case activity As our prior post noted, the court of appeals upheld D.K. (or “Donald”)’s commitment against his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The supreme court has now agreed to decide whether the testimony of the examining physician, who was the sole witness […]
Source: WI Public Defenders – On Point
SCOW will review the petitioner’s burden on dangerousness in ch. 51 cases