 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Commitment of Franklin4/1/2004
nothing in Dr. Doren's testimony to the jury suggested that a determination that a person is sexually violent is aided by past episodes of uncontrolled behavior or criminality not relating to sexual misconduct.
. Furthermore, the majority opinion's claim that the defendant's expert witness supports its conclusion that the defendant has a mental disorder that features uncontrolled, aggressive conduct is not supported in the record. The majority opinion quotes Dr. Lodl's testimony but omits the underlined portion below and changes the meaning of his testimony:
And obviously there are sexual issues in his record as well, the sexual assaults the he is convicted of, the battery incidents that seem to include some sexual behavior or at least have some sexual innuendo to them all the way back to I believe to 1971 where he was charged with fornicating, although I do not see that as a diagnosis--as a legal issue that would contribute to a diagnosis of sexual deviation, okay, it's just people are noting his sexual behavior.
. Dr. Lodl's testimony actually undercuts the majority opinion's conclusion and suggests that the mere presence of prior sexual behavior in the defendant's past does not lead to a conclusion that he is sexually deviant.
. The majority opinion errs in its relevance analysis by bifurcating Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) into two prongs, namely: (1) finding that the defendant has a mental disorder that makes it difficult for him to control his behavior; and (2) evaluating whether the defendant will engage in future sexual violence. This test is not the one set forth in § 980.01(7), however. The statute requires a nexus between the mental disorder and the probability of future sexual violence. The court explained in State v. Laxton, 2002 WI 82, , 254 Wis. 2d 185, 647 N.W.2d 784, that a nexus must be established between the mental disorder and the probability of future sexual violence. The court stated:
e conclude that such a civil commitment [of a sexual predator] does not require a separate finding that the individual's mental disorder involves serious difficulty for such person to control his or her behavior. The requisite proof of lack of control is established when the nexus between such person's mental disorder and dangerousness has been established.
. The majority opinion's apparent conclusion that because the expert witnesses "identified two components to their opinions" that this must be the law is perplexing and erroneous. Dr. Doren testified that the defendant suffered from paraphilia not-otherwise-specified and that this diagnosis made it substantially probable that the defendant would engage in future acts of sexual violence. Dr. Lodl testified that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia and that this made it less likely that he would commit future acts of sexual violence. The testimony of the experts attempted to draw a link between the defendant's mental condition and his propensity for future sexual violence.
. I conclude that the majority opinion's attempt to support its conclusion that the defendant's prior non-sexual misconduct was relevant to the chapter 980 determination by reference to the testimony of the State's and defendant's expert witnesses fails. Evidence of the defendant's prior acts of misconduct were not relevant because, according to the record, this evidence does not relate to a fact or proposition that is of consequence to the determination of the action.
C.
. The majority opinion contends that evidence of the defendant's prior non-sexual misconduct was relevant, relying on U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The majority opinion relies on Kansas v. Hendricks, 5
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|