State v. Green
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2020AP298-CR |
| Citation | 2021 WI App 18,957 N.W.2d 583,396 Wis.2d 658 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph G. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Kathilynne A. Grotelueschen, assistant state public defender of Madison.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Maura Whelan, assistant attorney general, and Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general.
Before Fitzpatrick, P.J., Kloppenburg, and Nashold, JJ.
¶1 Joseph G. Green appeals the circuit court's order for commitment and for involuntary medication, issued pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 971.14 (2017-18),1 to render Green competent to be tried for first-degree intentional homicide. Green also appeals the court's subsequent order lifting the automatic stay of the involuntary medication order. Green argues that: (1) the State did not present evidence sufficient to support the involuntary medication order under the constitutional standard announced in Sell v. United States , 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003) (the Sell factors);2 (2) the circuit court did not "have authority" to toll the statutory period to commit Green in order to bring him to competency during the time that the involuntary medication order was stayed;3 and (3) the circuit court did not "have authority" to hear the State's motion to lift the automatic stay of the involuntary medication order.4
¶2 We conclude that, considering all of the evidence the State presented before the circuit court, the State did not meet its evidentiary burden on the order for involuntary medication because it failed to present an individual treatment plan based on a medically informed record. The order for involuntary medication must therefore be reversed, along with the subsequent order lifting the automatic stay of that order.5 We also conclude that the circuit court lacked the authority to toll the statutory period to commit Green in order to bring him to competency while the stay was in place. Green must therefore be discharged from the commitment because the statutory commitment period has expired. In light of these conclusions, the remaining issue, whether the circuit court had the authority to hear the motion to lift the automatic stay, is moot. However, because this issue is likely to recur and is of statewide interest,6 we address it and conclude that the circuit court had the authority to hear the motion to lift the automatic stay. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court with directions to discharge Green from commitment to the Department of Health Services.
¶3 The following facts are undisputed. On December 27, 2019, Green was charged with first-degree intentional homicide. At defense counsel's request, the circuit court ordered a competency evaluation. Doctor Craig Schoenecker, a court-appointed psychiatrist, conducted a one-hour evaluation of Green and drafted a four-page report stating his opinion that Green suffered from "Other Specified Schizophrenia
and other Psychotic Disorder," that Green was incompetent to understand court proceedings and to assist in his own defense, and that Green could be rendered competent through treatment with antipsychotic medication. At the competency hearing held on February 10, 2020, Schoenecker testified and his report was admitted into evidence.
¶4 Schoenecker testified that Green exhibited symptoms of an extensive delusional belief system that included delusions regarding his criminal case and his attorney. Schoenecker testified that, if Green's psychotic delusions were treated with antipsychotic medication, Green would be substantially likely to become competent within the twelve-month period allowed by law. Finally, Schoenecker testified that psychiatric medication was medically appropriate and substantially unlikely to have side effects that would undermine the fairness of the trial, and that treatments less intrusive than involuntary medication were unlikely to restore Green to competency.
¶5 At the conclusion of the competency hearing, the circuit court found Green incompetent based on Schoenecker's testimony and report. The court also determined that the State showed by "clear and convincing" evidence that the Sell factors were met, ordered that Green be committed to the Department of Health Services for "an indeterminate term not to exceed 12 months," and issued an order for involuntary medication.
¶6 On February 11, 2020, Green appealed the involuntary medication order and moved for an automatic stay of the order. At a hearing on the motion for a stay, the parties agreed that Green was entitled to an automatic stay,7 and the circuit court stayed the order for involuntary medication until further order of the court.
¶7 The State subsequently filed motions to lift the automatic stay and to toll the statutory period to bring Green to competency during the time that the stay was in place. The circuit court determined that it was proper for the circuit court to hear the State's motion to lift the automatic stay and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on both of the State's motions for May 19, 2020.
¶8 At that hearing, the circuit court allowed the State, over Green's objection, to supplement the record with additional evidence regarding the order for involuntary medication that went beyond the evidence the State had presented at the competency hearing. At the hearing, the State presented additional evidence comprising a "Notice of Treatment Plan" that had been filed by the State and was signed by the prosecutor, Schoenecker's five-page report of a second competency evaluation of Green, and Schoenecker's testimony regarding his report and the State's treatment plan.
¶9 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court made findings of fact and once again determined that the Sell factors were satisfied. The court granted the State's motion to lift the automatic stay of the involuntary medication order based on its determination that the State was likely to succeed on appeal and that lifting the stay would not cause irreparable harm to Green, substantial harm to any other interested parties, or harm to the public.8 The circuit court also granted the State's motion to toll the statutory period to bring Green to competency.
¶10 Green moved this court for relief pending appeal and we granted a temporary stay of the involuntary medication order. After further briefing, we denied Green's motion for relief pending appeal and lifted the temporary stay.
¶11 We present additional undisputed facts as pertinent in the discussion below.
¶12 We discuss in turn each of the three issues presented on appeal.
¶13 Green argues that the order for involuntary medication must be reversed because the State did not present evidence sufficient to satisfy the constitutional standard announced in Sell . We first present the standard of review and general legal principles. We next provide additional pertinent background. Finally, we explain why we conclude that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the Sell standard and that the involuntary medication order must, therefore, be reversed.
¶14 "In Sell , the United States Supreme Court held that in limited circumstances the government may involuntarily medicate a defendant to restore his [or her] competency to proceed to trial, and it outlined four factors that must be met before a circuit court may enter an order for involuntary medication." State v. Fitzgerald , 2019 WI 69, ¶2, 387 Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165.9 These four factors, which we next explain in detail, are that: (1) the government has an important interest in proceeding to trial; (2) involuntary medication will significantly further the governmental interest; (3) involuntary medication is necessary to further the governmental interest; and (4) involuntary medication is medically appropriate. Id. , ¶¶14-17.
¶15 Our supreme court in Fitzgerald , 387 Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165, provided the following explanation of the Sell standard's four factors, from which we now quote at length:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green
...reversed the circuit court's involuntary medication order and its order lifting the automatic stay of involuntary 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......
-
Racine Cnty. v. B.L.M. (In re B.L.M.)
...its 'ability to exercise the subject matter jurisdiction vested in it' by Article VII, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution." State v. Green, 2021 WI.App. 18, ¶64, 396 Wis.2d 658, 957 N.W.2d 583 Mikrut, 273 Wis.2d 76, ¶¶8-10). A circuit court's competency is implicated "when the failure ......
-
State v. White
...interpreted to have demonstrated White's ability to understand criminal proceedings and aid in his defense.¶47 White notes that in State v. Green , we contrasted the requirement that the examiner's report include an opinion on competency with the less strict requirement that there be an opi......
-
State v. White
...interpreted to have demonstrated White's ability to understand criminal proceedings and aid in his defense. ¶47 White notes that in State v. Green, we the requirement that the examiner's report include an opinion on competency with the less strict requirement that there be an opinion as to ......