State v. J.D.B., 2023AP715-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 2/12/25; case activity
In a case that promises to have broad repercussions for how involuntary medication hearings are conducted under § 971.14(5)(am). , SCOW agrees to review a case we termed a “HUGE” defense win.
Interestingly, despite the multiple interlocking holdings in the COA opinion, the State’s petition is short and sweet:
Sell sets forth the standard for the government to obtain an involuntary medication order to restore trial competency. To comport with due process, a court must find that (1) an important governmental interest is at stake, (2) involuntary medication will significantly further that interest, (3) involuntary medication is necessary, and (4) involuntary medication is medically appropriate. On top of the Sell factors, to obtain a medication order, the State must establish that the defendant is incompetent to refuse medication.
1. Did the State prove the Sell factors by clear and convincing evidence?
2. Did the State prove the defendant incompetent to refuse treatment?
Looking closer, however, it would appear there isn’t much that the State likes about the lower court decision; its statement of criteria supporting review succinctly portrays COA’s decision as riven with all manner of errors, all of which combine to place an unreasonable burden on the State when seeking an involuntary medication order. We probably broke the length record in our massive post on COA’s detailed decision, so we won’t try to recap it all here. Suffice it to say, this is an important case meriting close attention as the State tries to claw back a defense win in SCOW.
