859 N.W.2d 155
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Talley, a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. ch. 980, petitioned for discharge in 2011.
- Initial commitment trial required proof beyond a reasonable doubt; discharge trial uses clear and convincing evidence.
- Talley’s discharge petition led to a jury verdict continuing his commitment.
- Talley challenged Wis. Stat. § 980.09(3) as unconstitutional due to due process concerns.
- The circuit court denied Talley’s post-commitment relief motion; the issue was preserved for appeal.
- Court declines forfeiture argument and assesses merits under Addington v. Texas to determine due process sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 980.09(3) violates due process on its face | Talley contends the statute violates due process by not requiring beyond a reasonable doubt | State argues the issue is not waived and the standard is constitutionally adequate | Facial challenge rejected; clear and convincing standard satisfies due process. |
| Whether the State’s forfeiture argument controls the outcome | Talley argues Bush governs facial challenges as non-waivable | State urges forfeiture to prevent sandbagging | Court declines to rely on forfeiture but ultimately reaches merits. |
| Whether Addington governs discharge trials for sexually violent persons | Talley asserts Addington requires beyond a reasonable doubt for discharge | State maintains Addington supports clear and convincing for discharge | Clear and convincing standard satisfies due process at discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bush, 283 Wis.2d 90 (2005 WI 103) (facial challenges to statutes cannot be waived; subject matter jurisdiction)
- State v. Post, 199 Wis.2d 279 (1995 WI) (context for permissible standards; heightened procedures may reduce risk of error)
- Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 351 Wis.2d 273 (2013 WI) (assumed no forfeiture of facial challenge; Bush retained relevance)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (civil commitment due process balancing; clear and convincing standard may be adequate)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (discussed for context on proof standards in continued commitment)