State Ex Rel. Office of the State Public Defender v. Court of Appeals
828 N.W.2d 847
Wis.2013Background
- Buchanan's PSI referenced in his merit appeal; PSI access and use rules at issue.
- SPD-counsel Grunder sought permission to reference/quote from Buchanan's PSI in the court of appeals; the court granted.
- State sought permission for its brief; court of appeals placed Buchanan's brief under seal and required circuit court permission.
- SPD petitioned for supervisory writ; SPD and amicus argued parties entitled to 'have and keep a copy' may reference PSI without court permission.
- The question presented: interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) and whether use/reference in briefs requires court authorization; Parent addressed access in no-merit appeals, not use in meritorious briefs.
- Majority holds that in merit appeals, parties entitled to have and keep a copy may reference PSI information in appellate briefs if not confidential; confidentiality tied to Rule 809.81; weighs practical considerations and cautions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permission is required to reference PSI in appellate briefs | Buchanan/SPD: no permission required under 972.15(4m) to reference PSI | Court of Appeals: circuit court permission needed to access/cite PSI | No court permission needed to reference PSI in meritorious briefs (subject to confidentiality) |
| Scope of confidentiality under 972.15(4) and (4m) | Parties may have/copy PSI; can reference non-confidential content | Confidentiality restricts use and disclosure | Confidentiality requires adherence to 809.81; redaction where necessary; entire PSI not categorically off-limits |
| Role of court as gatekeeper vs. administrative guidance | Court need not gatekeep every reference; practical access is sufficient | Gatekeeping necessary to protect informants and confidential data | Majority uses superintending/administrative authority to set rules, not gatekeeping burden; guidance issued |
| Effect of Parent on meritorious appeals vs. no-merit appeals | Parent governs no-merit access; downstream use in meritorious briefs allowed | Parent limited to no-merit appeals; cannot expand to meritorious briefs | Rule of Parent limited to no-merit appeals; meritorious appeals allowed PSI reference with safeguards |
| What constitutes 'confidential information' and safeguards for PSI data | Only extreme care needed for sensitive data; redaction suffices | Broader confidentiality categories may restrict use | Confidentiality aligns with Rule 809.81; redaction and careful citing required; some data may require additional statutory safeguards |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Comstock, 168 Wis. 2d 915 (1992) (PSI is confidential; court must protect informants; use limited to litigation context)
- State v. Parent, 298 Wis. 2d 63 (2006) (No-merit appeals; PSI access rights; confidentiality requirements explained)
- State v. Greve, 272 Wis.2d 444 (2004) (Confidentiality in PSI related to sentencing decisions)
- State v. Gallion, 270 Wis.2d 535 (2004) (Court records; relation to sentencing and PSI references)