State v. Schulpius
825 N.W.2d 311
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Schulpius was civilly committed as a sexually violent person in July 1996 under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 and later committed to Sand Ridge in 2000.
- His January 2010 petition for discharge was denied after a jury hearing reviewing four years of re-examination and progress reports (2006–2009).
- In August 2010 Schulpius filed another discharge petition seeking a hearing, alleging he no longer met the criteria for commitment.
- The State moved to deny a hearing under Arends, arguing Schulpius had to show a change since the last discharge hearing.
- The court held that a discharge hearing requires new evidence not previously considered by a factfinder, and Schulpius had none, so the petition was denied without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 980.09(2) requires new evidence for a discharge hearing | Schulpius contends new evidence isn't required beyond progress since initial commitment | State contends new evidence is needed, not previously considered, showing lack of commitment | Yes; new evidence is required for a discharge hearing |
| Whether Barahal's July 2010 opinion qualifies as new evidence | Barahal's change based on progress and new scoring should count as new evidence | Change was based on a recalculation of the Static-99 score, not new facts/knowledge | No; Barahal's revised opinion was not based on new facts/professional knowledge/research |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arends, 325 Wis.2d 1 (2010 WI 46) (discharge-hearing standard under § 980.09(2))
- State v. Combs, 295 Wis.2d 457 (2006 WI App 137) (new-discharge-hearing standard requires new facts or knowledge)
- State v. Kruse, 296 Wis.2d 130 (2006 WI App 179) (precludes relying solely on post-commitment evidence not based on new facts)