Waukesha County v. M.D.S., Jr., 2024AP1315, District II, 11/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Smith’s” challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this chapter 51 case, concluding that the circuit court applied the correct legal standard and the county met its burden to show that Smith was dangerous under sub. 2.b.
This is an appeal of an initial commitment order entered in 2023, after Smith approached Alec W., who was moving items into his brother and father’s apartment, didn’t seem coherent, got in their personal space, tried to enter the apartment, tried to put his arms around them, made strange noises, and “made gun signs with his hands” or “point[ed].” (¶¶3-5). Alec called the police and followed Smith around, who said that there would be a showdown once police arrived. (¶6). Smith also made statements to people who were not present. (¶7).
The COA looks to the totality of the evidence presented to conclude the circuit court did not err in determining that Smith was dangerous under the second dangerousness standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. (¶22). Similarly, the COA concludes that the county established Smith “evidence[d] a substantial probability of physical harm to other[s]” under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. by showing evidence that “Alec was placed in reasonable fear that Smith would engage in violent behavior and serious physical harm to at least law enforcement.” (¶23).
Given that Smith’s brief is not available and the opinion does not provide a summary, Smith’s argument related to the circuit court’s application of an incorrect legal standard is unclear. The COA does not explain why it applies a totality of the evidence approach to this question on appeal. Under D.J.W., the COA is not to search the record, but rather, must consider the circuit court’s specific factual findings.
