Milwaukee Cnty. v. Mary F.-R. (In re Mental Commitment of Mary F.-R.)

• Decision Date: 26 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2012AP958.,2012AP958.
• Citation: 351 Wis.2d 273,2013 WI 92,839 N.W.2d 581
• Parties: In the matter of the MENTAL COMMITMENT OF MARY F.–R. Milwaukee County, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Mary F.–R., Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

351 Wis.2d 273

839 N.W.2d 581

2013 WI 92

In the matter of the MENTAL COMMITMENT OF MARY F.–R.Milwaukee County, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.Mary F.–R., Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.

No. 2012AP958.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Sept. 3, 2013.

Decided Nov. 26, 2013.

For the respondent-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs by Hannah B. Schieber, assistant state public defender, and oral argument by Hannah B. Schieber.

For the petitioner-respondent, there was a brief by Kimberly R. Walker, Milwaukee County corporation counsel, and Colleen A. Foley, principal assistant corporation counsel, and oral argument by Colleen A. Foley.

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

¶ 1 This is a review of an unpublished court of appeals decision ¹ that affirmed the circuit court's order to involuntarily commit Mary F.–R. under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 (2011–12).² This case concerns the constitutionality of the jury trial provisions available to individuals subject to involuntary commitment for treatment under Chapter 51. Under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11), such individuals may request a six-person jury for their involuntary commitment hearing and at least a 5/6 jury determination is required. The specific question we address is whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection is violated when only a six-person jury with a 5/6 determination is available to those subject to involuntary commitment under Chapter 51 when compared to the 12–person jury and a requirement of unanimity for individuals subject to involuntary civil commitment proceedings as sexually violent persons under Chapter 980. We also are presented with the question of whether Mary F.–R. forfeited her equal protection challenge by failing to make a contemporaneous objection at the time the circuit court empaneled the six-person jury at her commitment hearing.

¶ 2 On December 8, 2011, a jury of six found that Milwaukee County met its burden to involuntarily commit Mary F.–R. for treatment for mental illness under Wis. Stat. § 51.20. The following day, the circuit court entered an order, which committed Mary F.–R. for a period no longer than six months. Mary F.–R. appeals that order, arguing that the six-person non-unanimous jury available to her under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) violates equal protection. In addition, Mary F.–R. argues that she did not forfeit her equal protection argument, even though she failed to raise a contemporaneous objection because she had already made multiple requests for a 12–person jury.

¶ 3 To reach Mary F.–R.'s equal protection challenge, we assume, without deciding, that she did not forfeit her right to challenge Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11). We hold that the differences in the jury provisions for initial commitment hearings under § 51.20(11) and Chapter 980 do not violate Mary F.–R.'s constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment or under Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The legislature chose to allow for differing jury protections for initial commitments under § 51.20 and Chapter 980 and these choices, reflected in the legislative enactments in question, are presumed constitutional. ³ Mary F.–R. has not overcome this presumption and has not demonstrated the unconstitutionality of § 51.20 beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, considering that Mary F.–R's specific challenge relates to jury provisions, we find that rational basis review is appropriate.⁴ We hold that the different purposes of the provisions in question, the varied legislative schemes, and the range of liberty restrictions imposed on individuals subject to commitment under Wis. Stat. § 51.20, when compared to Chapter 980, provide a rational basis for the legislative decision to provide a unanimous 12–person jury for initial Chapter 980 commitments and a six-person jury with a 5/6 verdict for initial commitments under § 51.20(11). Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.

I. Background

¶ 4 The facts underlying Mary F.–R.'s initial commitment are not in dispute. Policeofficers responded to Mary F.–R.'s apartment complex to address a call from a concerned neighbor. After investigating further, officers placed Mary F.–R. in emergency detention. Following this detention, the treatment director of the Milwaukee County Mental Health division or his designee ⁵ filed a supplemental statement to the emergency detention. ⁶

¶ 5 After an individual is detained under §§ 51.15 or 51.20, a court must hold a hearing to determine “whether there is probable cause to believe the allegations” set forth in the petition for commitment. Wis. Stat. § 51.20(7)(a). On November 30, 2011, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Court Commissioner Lindsey Grady presiding, held a hearing to determine whether Milwaukee County had probable cause to detain Mary F.–R. On the same day, Mary F.–R. filed a handwritten request for a 12–person jury.⁷ During the probable cause hearing, Mary F.–R. also orally requested a 12–person jury. ⁸ Part way through the hearing, Mary F.–R. became unsatisfied with her attorney and fired her. The circuit court commissioner suspended the probable cause hearing and scheduled a continuance to allow new counsel to be appointed. Prior to the conclusion of the November 30, 2011, proceeding, the circuit court accepted Mary F.–R.'s demand to have a jury trial, but did not specifically address her demand to have a 12–person jury. On December 2, 2011, the circuit court, the Honorable William W. Brash presiding, continued with the probable cause hearing. At this hearing, Mary F.–R. requested a 12–person jury for her commitment trial.⁹ At the conclusion of this hearing, the circuit court found that Milwaukee County had met its burden to show that probable cause existed to believe the allegations asserted in the emergency detention and treatment director statement to commit Mary F.–R.

¶ 6 Following a finding of probable cause, the next step in involuntary commitment proceedings under Chapter 51 is to hold a final hearing. On December 8, 2011, the circuit court, the Honorable Victor Manian presiding, empaneled a six-person jury for Mary F.–R.'s final commitment hearing. Neither Mary F.–R. nor her attorney objected to the six-person jury at this time. Following the hearing, the jury unanimously found that Mary F.–R. met the requirements under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a) for involuntary commitment. Specifically, the jury found that Mary F.–R. was mentally ill, that she was a proper subject for treatment, and that she was a danger to herself and to others. The following day, December 9, 2011, the circuit court ordered Mary F.–R. be committed to the Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division, a locked facility, for a period not to exceed six months.

¶ 7 Mary F.–R. appealed the circuit court's order.¹⁰ Relevant to the issue before this court, Mary F.–R. challenged the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11)¹¹ on equal protection grounds. The court of appeals affirmed Mary F.–R.'s involuntary commitment. It held that Mary F.–R. forfeited her equal protection argument by failing to argue its unconstitutionality at the circuit court and by failing to object, either by herself or through counsel, to the jury of six at the time of empanelment.

¶ 8 Mary F.–R. raises two challenges before this court that relate only to the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11). First, she argues that she did not forfeit her equal protection challenge when she failed to make a contemporaneous objection at the time the circuit court empaneled the six-person jury. Second, she argues that both § 51.20(11) and Chapter 980 are civil commitment statutes, and that the jury provisions available for initial commitment hearings for both should be the same. Specifically, Mary F.–R. argues that § 51.20(11), on its face,¹² violates her constitutional right to equal protection because § 51.20(11) does not require a 12–person jury and a unanimous verdict like the applicable provisions under Chapter 980.¹³

II. Standard of Review

¶ 9 A statute's constitutionality is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. West, 2011 WI 83, ¶ 22, 336 Wis.2d 578, 800 N.W.2d 929. “Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and a party challenging a statute's constitutionality must demonstrate that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. McGuire, 2010 WI 91, ¶ 25, 328 Wis.2d 289, 786 N.W.2d 227.

III. Analysis

A. Introduction

¶ 10 The United States Constitution ¹⁴ and the Wisconsin Constitution ¹⁵guarantee individuals equal protection under the law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. Equal protection under our state constitution is generally interpreted in the same way as the equal protection clause found in the federal constitution. State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester, 26 Wis.2d 43, 49, 132 N.W.2d 249 (1965).

¶ 11 As Mary F.–R.'s equal protection challenge requires a comparison of jury provisions in Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) to jury provisions in Chapter 980, we will begin with a brief overview of the use of jury determinations in civil proceedings and specifically in civil commitment proceedings. We will then proceed by giving a brief overview of involuntary commitment procedures under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 and Chapter 980 before addressing Mary F.–R.'s specific arguments.

¶ 12 The Wisconsin Constitution allows the legislature to provide for a specified number of jurors for a valid verdict, but not less than 5/6 thereof in civil cases. Wis. Const. art. I, § 5 (amended 1922).¹⁶ The legislature has chosen to allow six-person juries in civil cases. Wis. Stat. § 756.06(2)(b). An exception is provided for juries in Chapter 980 cases. Id. In addition, the legislature has sanctioned the use of a non-unanimous 5/6 jury verdict for all six-person juries permitted by Wis. Stat. § 756.06(2)(b). SeeWis. Stat. § 805.09.

¶ 13 Wisconsin Stat. § 51.20 is a civil statute that governs involuntary commitments. Wisconsin has a long history of utilizing juries in involuntary...