State v. Knipfer
842 N.W.2d 526
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Knipfer was committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 after a state petition filed in 2002 and civil commitment in 2003.
- In May 2012 Knipfer filed a petition for discharge from his chapter 980 commitment.
- In 2011 the Wisconsin Legislature amended Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) to adopt a Daubert-style admissibility standard for expert testimony, effective February 1, 2011.
- The circuit court held the pre‑Daubert version of § 907.02(1) applied to Knipfer’s discharge petition and denied discharge; the court also rejected Knipfer’s constitutional challenges.
- On appeal Knipfer argued the amended (Daubert) standard applies to any discharge petition filed on or after the statute’s effective date and, alternatively, that excluding him from Daubert violates equal protection and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Knipfer’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2011 Daubert amendment to Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) apply to a ch. 980 discharge petition filed after Feb. 1, 2011? | The Daubert standard applies to any discharge petition filed on or after the statute’s effective date. | The statute applies only to "actions or special proceedings that are commenced" on or after the effective date; a discharge petition is a continuation of the original commitment action. | The court followed State v. Alger and held the Daubert amendment does not apply because the commitment action began in 2002. |
| Does excluding pre‑existing commitments from the Daubert amendment violate equal protection? | Applying pre‑Daubert law to those committed before Feb. 1, 2011 denies petitioners like Knipfer equal protection and requires strict scrutiny because of a substantial liberty interest. | The evidentiary rule is generally applicable; rational basis review applies and the classification is rational. | Court declined to apply strict scrutiny, applied rational basis (consistent with Alger and Mary F.-R.), and rejected the equal protection challenge. |
| Does exclusion from the Daubert amendment violate procedural or substantive due process? | Knipfer contends Daubert is required to ensure reliability of ch. 980 discharge proceedings and due process. | Pre‑Daubert evidentiary standards do not render proceedings unreliable; no additional showing provided. | Court rejected the due process claim, finding no persuasive showing that pre‑Daubert standards deny due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Alger, 352 Wis. 2d 145 (Wis. Ct. App.) (discharge petition is continuation of original commitment; Daubert amendment did not apply)
- Milwaukee Cnty. v. Mary F.-R., 351 Wis. 2d 273 (Wis.) (applied rational basis to procedural differences in commitment statutes)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishing federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279 (Wis.) (discussing ch. 980 liberty interests and equal protection framework)
- State v. McManus, 152 Wis. 2d 113 (Wis.) (presumption of constitutionality; challenger bears burden)