State v. Green, 2020AP298-CR

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtPATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.
Citation401 Wis.2d 542,973 N.W.2d 770,2022 WI 30
Parties STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Joseph G. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number2020AP298-CR
Decision Date13 May 2022

401 Wis.2d 542
973 N.W.2d 770
2022 WI 30

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,
v.
Joseph G. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2020AP298-CR

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oral Argument: December 13, 2021
Opinion Filed: May 13, 2022


For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Kara L. Janson, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Kara L. Janson.

For the defendant-appellant, there were briefs filed by Kathilynne A. Grotelueschen, assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Kathilynne A. Grotelueschen.

ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ZIEGLER, C.J., REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, and HAGEDORN, JJ., joined, and in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined with respect to Part II.D., and in which DALLET, J., joined with respect to Part II.D. and ¶¶3 and 53. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which DALLET and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.

973 N.W.2d 773
401 Wis.2d 546

¶1 Joseph G. Green was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, and was determined to be incompetent to stand trial. He was committed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.14 (2017-18)1 to administer involuntary medication. Green appealed the order, and according to our decision in State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141, the order for involuntary medication was stayed automatically. We review the court of appeals’ opinion2 that reversed the circuit

401 Wis.2d 547

court's3 decision granting the State's involuntary medication order, lifting the stay of involuntary medication, and tolling the statutory time limit to bring a defendant to competence.

¶2 We conclude that because the State's significant pretrial interests in bringing a defendant who meets each one of the factors set out in Sell v. United States 4 to competency for trial and providing timely justice to victims outweigh upholding a defendant's liberty interest in refusing involuntary medication at the pretrial stage of criminal proceedings, Scott’s automatic stay of involuntary medication orders pending appeal does not apply to pretrial proceedings. Therefore, we employ our supervisory authority to limit our decision in Scott on which the court of appeals relied.5

¶3 We also conclude that Wis. Stat. § 971.14(5)(a)1. is not subject to tolling in a pretrial context. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals decision in part.

401 Wis.2d 548

I. BACKGROUND

¶4 The facts in this case are undisputed. On December 27, 2019, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Green with first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon. Pretrial, defense counsel raised reason to doubt Green's competency to proceed. The circuit court ordered a competency examination, which was completed by Dr. Craig Schoenecker and filed with the court. At the competency hearing, Dr. Schoenecker testified that Green was not competent but could be restored to competency through antipsychotic-type medication within the 12-month statutory timeframe. Dr. Schoenecker also testified that the medication was medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that would undermine a fair trial, and that other, less intrusive, treatments were unlikely to restore Green to competency.

¶5 After the hearing, the circuit court found Green incompetent. Accordingly, the court entered an order of commitment for treatment with the involuntary administration of medication. Following this determination, Green appealed and filed an emergency motion for stay of the involuntary

973 N.W.2d 774

medication order pending appeal, which was automatically granted by the circuit court pursuant to our decision in Scott.

¶6 The State responded with motions to lift the automatic stay and to toll the statutory time period to bring a defendant to competence, both of which were granted by the circuit court. Green appealed. He moved for relief pending appeal, which included reinstatement of the temporary stay. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's involuntary medication order and its order lifting the automatic stay of involuntary

401 Wis.2d 549

medication. State v. Green, 2021 WI App 18, ¶2, 396 Wis. 2d 658, 957 N.W.2d 583. In addition, the court of appeals determined that the circuit court lacked authority to toll the statutory time period to bring Green to competency. Id., ¶58. We granted the State's petition for review.

¶7 Upon granting review, the parties submitted briefs addressing the circuit court's ability to toll the limits on the maximum length of commitment for competency restoration. However, following oral argument, additional briefing was ordered to answer whether the automatic stay required by Scott applied to pretrial proceedings. We determine: (1) whether Scott’s automatic stay applies to pretrial competency proceedings and (2) whether Wis. Stat. § 971.14(5)(a)1. permits tolling the 12-month limitation provided to restore a defendant to competency.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

¶8 In the matter before us, we review the exercise of our superintending and administrative authority over Wisconsin courts as reasoned in Scott. Scott, 382 Wis. 2d 476, ¶43, 914 N.W.2d 141. In so doing, we review our discretionary exercise of a constitutionally granted power. Wis. Const. art. VII, § 3. This review involves not just the declared source of that power, but also the rationale we employed for exercising it.

¶9 We also review the court of appeals’ interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. § 971.14(5)(a)1. Statutory interpretation and application present questions

401 Wis.2d 550

of law for our independent review. Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, 2020 WI 42, ¶14, 391 Wis. 2d 497, 942 N.W.2d 900.

B. Competency Proceedings

¶10 This case arises out of an order of commitment for the provision of involuntary medication. Therefore, some background about the statutory foundation for and the judicial interpretations of such orders may be helpful to the reader.

¶11 We begin with the statutory foundation for commitment proceedings in criminal prosecutions, Wis. Stat. § 971.13(1), which provides:

No person who lacks substantial mental capacity to understand the proceedings or assist in his or her own defense may be tried, convicted or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures.

§ 971.13(1). Section 971.13(1) is a codification of the due process requirement that a defendant be able to "understand" and "assist" when evaluating a defendant's competency to stand trial. It "considers whether the defendant: (1) ‘has sufficient present ability to consult’ with his or her lawyer ‘with a reasonable degree of rational understanding;’ and (2) ‘has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.’ " State v. Smith, 2016 WI 23, ¶35, 367 Wis. 2d 483, 878 N.W.2d 135 (quoting State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, ¶27, 237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477 ). "This two-part ‘understand-and-assist’ test constitutes

973 N.W.2d 775

the core of the competency-to-stand-trial analysis." Id., ¶28.

401 Wis.2d 551

¶12 Furthermore, "[w]henever there is a reason to doubt the competency of a defendant to proceed," the circuit court is directed to order an examination of the defendant under Wis. Stat. § 971.14(1r)(a) and (2). State v. Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d 214, 221, 558 N.W.2d 626 (1997). Upon completion of the examination, the examiner submits a report " ‘regarding the defendant's present mental capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his or her defense.’ " Id. (quoting § 971.14(3)(c) ). Importantly, the inquiry whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is a judicial, not a medical, determination. Byrge, 237 Wis. 2d 197, ¶31, 614 N.W.2d 477. "Although a defendant may have a history of psychiatric illness, a medical condition does not necessarily render the defendant incompetent to stand trial." Id. (quoting State ex rel. Haskins v. Cnty. Ct. of Dodge Cnty., 62 Wis. 2d 250, 264-65, 214 N.W.2d 575 (1974) ).

¶13 When a defendant's competency is contested, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing. Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b). The circuit court should not make a competency determination simply "on the basis of rubber stamping the report of a psychiatrist." Haskins, 62 Wis. 2d at 264, 214 N.W.2d 575. Rather, the circuit court must "weigh evidence that the defendant is competent against evidence that he or she is not." Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d at 222, 558 N.W.2d 626.

¶14 If a defendant is found to be incompetent, a court may allow the government to confine and involuntarily medicate the defendant if certain criteria are met. In Sell...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Doe v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 2020AP1032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 8, 2022
    ...to address the parents’ request for a temporary injunction is a discretionary decision subject to our independent review. State v. Green, 2022 WI 30, ¶3, 401 Wis. 2d 542, 973 N.W.2d 770.403 Wis.2d 404 B. Pseudonyms in Litigation¶55 The circuit court was asked to permit parents’ use of pseud......
  • State v. Lee, 2019AP221-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 24, 2022
    ...could find a constitutional violation," but it refused to dismiss the case. Lee waited 44 more days for counsel to finally be appointed.973 N.W.2d 770 ¶15 The facts of this case are concerning, and reflect a breakdown in our system of appointing attorneys 401 Wis.2d 604 for indigent defenda......
2 cases
  • Doe v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 2020AP1032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 8, 2022
    ...to address the parents’ request for a temporary injunction is a discretionary decision subject to our independent review. State v. Green, 2022 WI 30, ¶3, 401 Wis. 2d 542, 973 N.W.2d 770.403 Wis.2d 404 B. Pseudonyms in Litigation¶55 The circuit court was asked to permit parents’ use of pseud......
  • State v. Lee, 2019AP221-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • May 24, 2022
    ...could find a constitutional violation," but it refused to dismiss the case. Lee waited 44 more days for counsel to finally be appointed.973 N.W.2d 770 ¶15 The facts of this case are concerning, and reflect a breakdown in our system of appointing attorneys 401 Wis.2d 604 for indigent defenda......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT