State v. Sugden, 795 N.W.2d 456

Sugden, a judgment debtor under Wis. Stat. ch. 980, was committed as a sexually violent person after a 2007 jury verdict.
At trial, experts Hill (pro-commitment) and Rosell/Pierquet (defense) offered conflicting diagnoses and risk assessments.
Sugden moved for a new trial asserting newly discovered Static-99 risk percentages would affect the outcome.
The circuit court denied the new-trial request and the State sought to exclude a parole-supervision sentence from Pierquet's report under the rule of completeness.
The court and the court of appeals ultimately affirmed the judgment and declined discretionary reversal, concluding the inadmissible evidence did not prevent the real controversy from being tried.
The decision analyzed categories of challenged testimony (postcommitment annual reviews, postcommitment treatment, and screening process) to determine their impact on the real controversy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the new Static-99 risk data require a new trial?	Sugden argues the new percentages create doubt about commitment.	State contends the new data would not alter Hill/Pierquet's opinions.	No reasonable probability of doubt; no new trial warranted.
Was the parole-supervision sentence properly excluded under the rule of completeness?	Sugden asserts the sentence should have been admitted to completeDr. Pierquet's report.	State contends supervision details are irrelevant to the § 980.01(7) issue and are misleading if admitted.	Yes, correctly excluded; not required to complete the record.
Did the admissible/inadmissible testimony require reversal because the real controversy was not fully tried?	Sugden invokes discretionary reversal due to improper testimony on postcommitment matters.	State argues the testified topics were either invited error or not controlling.	No reversal; inadmissible testimony did not prevent full resolution of core issues.
Were postcommitment annual reviews and postcommitment treatment properly analyzed for relevance to the core issues?	Sugden asserts these topics improperly influenced the jury.	State contends some references were invited or informational but not outcome-determinative.	Generally irrelevant; exceptions discussed but not outcome-dispositive.

State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463 (1997) (new-trial standard for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Plude, 310 Wis. 2d 28 (2008) (reasonable-probability standard for new-trial consideration)
Vollmer v. Lusty, 156 Wis. 2d 1 (1990) (discretionary reversal power in interest-of-justice cases)
State v. Hicks, 202 Wis. 2d 150 (1996) (real controversy-not-tried standard; non-preservation context)
State v. Budd, 306 Wis. 2d 167 (2007) (role of screening-process testimony; relevance and potential prejudice)
State v. Kaminski, 322 Wis. 2d 653 (2009) (postcommitment evidence; real-contest not fully tried analysis)
State v. Treat v. Puckett, 252 Wis. 2d 404 (2002) (tethered to discretionary review scope in exceptional cases)
Mark v. State, 292 Wis. 2d 1 (2006) (limitations of time-bound risk instruments)