State v. Alger (In re Commitment of Alger), Nos. 2013AP225
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. |
| Citation | 360 Wis.2d 193,858 N.W.2d 346 |
| Parties | In re the COMMITMENT OF Michael ALGER. State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Michael Alger, Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner. In re the commitment of Ronald Knipfer. State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Ronald Knipfer, Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner. |
| Decision Date | 20 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2013AP225,2013AP578. |
360 Wis.2d 193
858 N.W.2d 346
In re the COMMITMENT OF Michael ALGER.
State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent
v.
Michael Alger, Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.
In re the commitment of Ronald Knipfer.
State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent
v.
Ronald Knipfer, Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.
Nos. 2013AP225
2013AP578.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Argued Oct. 2, 2014.
Decided Jan. 20, 2015.
For respondent-appellant-petitioner Michael Alger, there were briefs by Steven D. Phillips, assistant state public defender. Oral argument by Steven D. Phillips.
For respondent-appellant-petitioner Ronald Knipfer, there were briefs by Donald T. Lang, assistant state public defender, and oral argument by Donald T. Lang.
For the petitioner-respondent in both cases, the cause was argued by Nancy A. Noet, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.
Opinion
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 1 This
is a review of two published decisions of the court of appeals, State v. Alger, 2013 WI App 148, 352 Wis.2d 145, 841 N.W.2d 329, and State v. Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9, 352 Wis.2d 563, 842 N.W.2d 526.1 In Alger the court of appeals affirmed the Outagamie County Circuit Court's2 order denying Michael Alger's (“Alger”) petition for discharge from involuntary commitment under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 as a sexually violent person, as defined in Wis. Stat. § 908.01(7) (2011–12).3 In
Knipfer the court of appeals affirmed the Dane County Circuit Court's4 order denying Ronald Knipfer's (“Knipfer”) petition for discharge from involuntary commitment under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 as a sexually violent person.
¶ 2 Both Alger and Knipfer argue that the circuit courts erred by refusing to apply the Daubert5 evidentiary standard under Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1)6 to the State's expert witnesses who testified in their
Chapter 980 discharge petition trials. The legislature provided that the Daubert standard, which requires that particularized standards be met before an expert's testimony can be admitted, would “first apply to actions or special proceedings that are commenced on the effective date of this subsection [February 1, 2011].” 2011 Wis. Act 2, § 45(5).7 Both Alger and Knipfer argue that the Daubert evidentiary standard should have applied to the State's expert testimony at trial on their Chapter 980 discharge petitions because the petitions commenced “actions” or “special proceedings” after the Daubert standard's first date of applicability.8 Alger
and Knipfer further argue that their constitutional right to equal protection was violated when the Daubert evidentiary standard did not apply to and thus bar the State's expert testimony in their Chapter 980 discharge petition trials.9 Knipfer also argues that his constitutional right to due process was violated because the circuit court did not apply the Daubert standard
to the State's expert testimony in his Chapter 980 discharge petition trial.10
¶ 3 The State argues that the Daubert evidentiary standard does not apply to Alger's and Knipfer's petitions to discharge their Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments. The State contends that those discharge petitions did not commence “actions” or “special proceedings.”
Instead, the State argues, those discharge petitions are part of the underlying Chapter 980 commitments, which commenced several years before the Daubert standard's first date of applicability. The State also argues that the legislature had a rational basis for not applying the Daubert standard to the State's expert witnesses in Alger's and Knipfer's Chapter 980 discharge petition trials such that no violation of equal protection or due process occurred.
¶ 4 We conclude that the Daubert evidentiary standard under Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) does not apply to expert testimony in Alger's and Knipfer's Wis. Stat. ch. 980 discharge petition trials because their discharge petitions did not “commence” “actions” or “special proceedings.” The Daubert standard applies to “actions” or “special proceedings” commenced on or after February 1, 2011. The original Chapter 980 commitments here began several years before the Daubert standard was adopted, and although Alger's and Knipfer's petitions seek relief from those original commitments, those filings do not constitute the “commencement” of an “action” or a “special proceeding.” We also conclude that because the legislature had a rational basis for not applying the Daubert evidentiary standard to expert testimony in post-Daubert Chapter 980 discharge petitions that seek relief from pre-Daubert Chapter 980 commitments, no violation of equal protection or due process occurred.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. State v. Alger
¶ 5 It is undisputed that Alger was deemed to be a sexually violent person and was involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 on May 10, 2005. He has been under Chapter 980 commitment ever since.
¶ 6 In the six years between his Chapter 980 commitment and Wisconsin's adoption of the Daubert evidentiary standard, Alger filed one petition for discharge and much other correspondence with the committing court. The Daubert standard was not a Wisconsin evidentiary standard during any prior proceeding in Alger's Chapter 980 commitment.
¶ 7 On April 21, 2011, about two months after Wisconsin adopted the Daubert evidentiary standard, Alger filed a petition for discharge from his Chapter 980 commitment. The petition relied on Alger's expert's opinion that Alger was no longer a sexually violent person. The State's expert opined that Alger was still a sexually
violent person and should not be discharged from Chapter 980 commitment.
¶ 8 On July 29, 2011, Alger filed a motion in limine to exclude the State's expert testimony at the discharge petition trial on the ground that the testimony did not meet the newly adopted Daubert evidentiary standard. The State responded and argued that the Daubert standard did not apply because Alger's underlying commitment began before the Daubert standard was first applicable, and that the discharge petition was not a new “action” or “special proceeding.” On November 18, 2011, Alger filed a supplemental memorandum in support of his motion in limine in which he also argued that his constitutional right to equal protection would be violated if the Daubert standard did not apply to the State's expert testimony in his Chapter 980 discharge petition trial. On November 23, 2011, Alger filed another Chapter 980 discharge petition and that petition was merged with his previously filed discharge petition.
¶ 9 On January 30, 2012, the circuit court denied Alger's motion in limine. The court concluded that
the Daubert evidentiary standard did not apply to Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition. The court reasoned that Alger's discharge petition, although filed after the Daubert standard was first applicable, was part of the underlying Chapter 980 commitment proceeding that began when the State filed “[a] petition for a commitment trial under [Wis. Stat. § ] 980.02” several years before the Daubert standard was even adopted. The court also concluded that the failure to apply the Daubert standard to Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition did not violate equal protection.
¶ 10 On August 20, 2012, Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition was tried before a six-person jury. Two expert witnesses testified on behalf of Alger and two experts testified on behalf of the State. The jury found that Alger still met the criteria for Chapter 980 commitment. On August 22, 2012, the court entered an order denying Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition.
¶ 11 On November 19, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's order denying Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition.
¶ 12 On December 18, 2013, Alger petitioned this court for review, which we granted on May 23, 2014.
B. State v. Knipfer
¶ 13 It is undisputed that Knipfer was deemed to be a sexually violent person and was involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 on October 1, 2003. He has been under Chapter 980 commitment ever since.
¶ 14 In the seven and a half years between his Chapter 980 commitment and Wisconsin's adoption of the Daubert evidentiary standard, Knipfer filed three
petitions for discharge and much other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2014AP400.
...de novo while benefitting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court.” In re Commitment of Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶ 21, 360 Wis.2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346.III. DISCUSSION¶ 22 We first discuss whether Wis. Stat. § 66.0502 precludes the City from enforcing its residency requirement. W......
-
State v. Hager (In re Commitment of Hager), No. 2015AP330 & 2015AP1311
...the right to due process. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶ 22, 360 Wis. 2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346. A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute carries a heavy burden to overcome the presumption of constitutionali......
-
State v. Denny, No. 2015AP202-CR
...reviews de novo while benefitting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court." State v. Alger , 2015 WI 3, ¶21, 360 Wis.2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346 (citing State v. Ziegler , 2012 WI 73, ¶37, 342 Wis.2d 256, 816 N.W.2d 238 ).[W]e have repeatedly held that statutory interpre......
-
Marathon Cnty. v. D.K. (In re Condition D.K.), No. 2017AP2217
...de novo while benefiting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court." State v. Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶21, 360 Wis. 2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346 (citing State v. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, ¶37, 342 Wis. 2d 256, 816 N.W.2d 238 ).390 Wis.2d 63 ¶18 Finally, we must review whether there wa......
-
Black v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2014AP400.
...de novo while benefitting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court.” In re Commitment of Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶ 21, 360 Wis.2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346.III. DISCUSSION¶ 22 We first discuss whether Wis. Stat. § 66.0502 precludes the City from enforcing its residency requirement. W......
-
State v. Hager (In re Commitment of Hager), No. 2015AP330 & 2015AP1311
...the right to due process. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶ 22, 360 Wis. 2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346. A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute carries a heavy burden to overcome the presumption of constitutionali......
-
State v. Denny, No. 2015AP202-CR
...reviews de novo while benefitting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court." State v. Alger , 2015 WI 3, ¶21, 360 Wis.2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346 (citing State v. Ziegler , 2012 WI 73, ¶37, 342 Wis.2d 256, 816 N.W.2d 238 ).[W]e have repeatedly held that statutory interpre......
-
Marathon Cnty. v. D.K. (In re Condition D.K.), No. 2017AP2217
...de novo while benefiting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court." State v. Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶21, 360 Wis. 2d 193, 858 N.W.2d 346 (citing State v. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, ¶37, 342 Wis. 2d 256, 816 N.W.2d 238 ).390 Wis.2d 63 ¶18 Finally, we must review whether there wa......