State v. Raytrell K. Fitzgerald, 929 N.W.2d 165

Raytrell K. Fitzgerald was charged with felony possession of a firearm and found incompetent to stand trial due to schizoaffective disorder; two competency evaluations recommended treatment and noted he refused antipsychotic medication.
The circuit court held a hearing and ordered involuntary medication under Wis. Stat. § 971.14 to restore competency; the court emphasized the government interest in prosecuting a serious felony.
Shortly after the order, this court issued State v. Scott, establishing that involuntary-medication orders are automatically stayed pending appeal; Fitzgerald filed a notice of intent and a supervisory writ contesting the timing of that stay.
The circuit court granted a stay but signaled it might lift the stay pending the State’s motion; Fitzgerald appealed; the court of appeals denied his writ and held the automatic stay begins when an appeal is filed.
The Supreme Court reviewed two consolidated matters: (1) the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 971.14(3)(dm) and (4)(b) under Sell v. United States and (2) whether Scott’s automatic stay begins on entry of the order or upon filing an appeal; the Court vacated the medication order as not complying with Sell but was equally divided on the supervisory-writ timing issue and affirmed the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 971.14(3)(dm) and (4)(b) permit involuntary medication consistent with Sell v. United States	State: § 971.14 is constitutional; Sell governs judicial practice but does not invalidate the statutory procedure; extrinsic forms and bench materials incorporate Sell factors	Fitzgerald: § 971.14 permits involuntary medication based solely on inability to understand or refuse treatment and therefore does not require the Sell factors, violating due process	The statute is unconstitutional to the extent it requires involuntary medication without applying the four Sell factors; courts may order medication only when Sell is satisfied; the circuit court’s order vacated
Whether Scott's automatic stay of involuntary-medication orders begins upon entry of the order or upon filing an appeal/notice of intent	Fitzgerald: Scott’s automatic stay should begin upon entry of the order	State: stay does not begin until an appeal is actually pending; circuit court complied by staying the order until appeal status clarified	Supreme Court evenly divided on this question; court of appeals decision denying supervisory writ is affirmed by an equally divided court

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (establishes four-factor test limiting when government may involuntarily medicate a defendant to restore trial competence)
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (recognizes significant liberty interest in avoiding unwanted antipsychotic drugs)
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (discusses fairness concerns from forced medication at trial)
State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74 (2018) (Wisconsin Supreme Court exercised superintending authority to impose an automatic stay on involuntary-medication orders pending appeal)