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
4. Trial
State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175 For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: “Infrequent references to annual re-evaluation” were not “sufficiently egregious to diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict,” ¶¶20-24… Read more
State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175 For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Testimony by a state’s expert to the effect that the only treatment program for psychopaths is at Sand Ridge did not require a new trial under the theory that it implicitly suggested commitment would be in the community’s and… Read more
State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93 For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation. Holding: ¶8 It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith, 229 Wis. 2d at… Read more
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245 For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Evidence that SVP respondent would be under DOC supervision if not committed under ch. 980 properly excluded as irrelevant, ¶¶8-14 (“the fact of supervision is irrelevant to whether Budd is a sexually violent person under § 980.01(7),” ¶14).The court… Read more
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245 For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence as to the “screening process” for referring SVP cases, which had the effect of informing the jury that fewer than 5% of eligible sex offenders are selected for commitment proceedings. Holding… Read more
State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07 For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: “(T)he phrase ‘more likely than not’ in the statute means what it says: that an event is more likely to occur than not to occur; that is, has a greater than 50% chance of happening. Thus… Read more
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
