799 N.W.2d 509
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Richard sought discharge from his Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment based on a research paper arguing aging reduces reoffense risk, not on his own new evidence.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition at the initial paper-review stage, holding the paper alone could not show a changed condition.
- Wis. Stat. § 980.09 requires a two-step review: a paper review to filter meritless petitions, then a discharge hearing if a fact-finder could find changed status.
- Psychologists Hill and Elwood testified Richard was more likely than not to reoffend, using RRASOR, Static-99, and MnSOST-R actuarial tools.
- Richard’s petition did not allege new facts about his condition; instead it offered a general research paper not tied to his individual circumstances; the court affirmed denial of discharge without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a research paper alone can establish changed condition for discharge | Richard argues paper indicates his condition changed | State argues paper is unconnected to Richard's condition | Paper alone insufficient; no discharge hearing |
| Whether Pocan/Combs compel discharge hearing here | Richard relies on Pocan/Combs reasoning | State contends those cases not controlling without new examination | Not controlling; no discharge hearing without new evaluation |
| Proper interpretation of the two-step discharge review in §980.09 | Petition should be screened for meritable new facts | Paper review requires new facts; no facts present | Two-step process satisfied; petition denied at paper-review stage |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pocan, 267 Wis.2d 953 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (new actuarial tools can lead to discharge if accompanied by new evidence)
- State v. Combs, 295 Wis.2d 457 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (court-appointed expert must rely on new facts or methods to merit discharge)
- State v. Arends, 325 Wis.2d 1 (Wis. 2010) (two-step discharge review; paper-review screen for merit)
- State v. Smalley, 305 Wis.2d 709 (Wis. App. 2007) (definition of 'likely' as more likely than not in § 980.01(7))