State v. Helmeid
| Decision Date | 04 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2021AP2003-CR |
| Parties | State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jason B. Helmeid, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
This opinion will not be published. See Wis.Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Pepin County: No 2005CF13 THOMAS W. CLARK, Judge.
Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, JJ.
Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in Wis.Stat. Rule 809.23(3).
¶ 1 Jason B. Helmeid appeals from a circuit court order revoking his conditional release from the custody of the Department of Health Services (the department) and returning him to institutional care. Helmeid argues that the State failed to meet its burden to prove either that he had violated any rule or condition of his conditional release or that "the safety of [himself] or others requires that conditional release be revoked." See Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) (2021-22).[1] We conclude that the evidence the State presented at Helmeid's revocation hearing was sufficient to support revocation of Helmeid's conditional release. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 2 In 2005, the State charged Helmeid in a criminal complaint with two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child under sixteen years of age. The complaint alleged that the fifteen-year-old victim was visiting her friend's home when Helmeid trapped her in the bathroom, held her hands behind her back, touched her breasts over her clothing, and then put his hand inside her pants and touched her vaginal area. The victim was "scared" and tried to get away from Helmeid. Eventually, the victim began kicking the washer and dryer located in the bathroom, and the owner of the home used a key to enter the bathroom and told Helmeid to "get out." A few months later, the victim was again visiting her friend, and Helmeid approached her outside the home and touched her breasts, buttocks, and vagina before "rubbing his penis against [the victim's] body." Law enforcement was subsequently contacted.
¶ 3 Helmeid pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) to one count of second-degree sexual assault of a child. As to the second count, Helmeid pled guilty to an amended charge of fourth-degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor. Helmeid was committed to the custody of the department for a period of twenty-five years. In 2006, the circuit court ordered Helmeid's conditional release, as well as two years of probation on the misdemeanor conviction.
¶ 4 Since that time, Helmeid's conditional release has been revoked and reinstated multiple times. On May 25, 2021, the department filed a statement of probable cause for detention and petition for revocation of conditional release with the circuit court, which is the operative petition for the purpose of this appeal.[2]That petition alleged the following:
¶ 5 The circuit court held a hearing on the petition on August 2 and 3, 2021. On the first day, the State called Sherfeng Vue-Helmeid's case manager, who works for Lutheran Social Services on behalf of the department. Vue testified that he helps "supervise [Helmeid's] conditions that [have] been set by the [c]ourt to make sure he follows his conditions and connect and support him out in the community." Vue had filed a supplement to the State's petition "in support of [his] belief" and the department's belief that "Helmeid has violated the terms of his conditional release, that his conditional release should be revoked[,] and [that] he should be returned to the institution at Winnebago." However when it became apparent that Vue had not personally observed any of Helmeid's alleged violations, the court adjourned the hearing so the State could call the appropriate witnesses to testify.
¶ 6 The hearing continued the next day, and the State called Zachary Argo-the house manager at Stable Living, where Helmeid was residing before revocation of his release. Argo explained that his role is to ensure that the residents of the facility adhere to their rules of supervision, to report any behavior outside of those rules or any misconduct, to make sure they take their medications, to transport them to appointments, and to otherwise assist with their daily tasks. If a resident violates his rules of supervision, Argo creates an incident report and sends that report to the individual's case manager and probation and parole officer.
¶ 7 Argo testified about the alleged rule violations Helmeid committed. First, Argo recounted that on one occasion, he Helmeid, and the other two residents of Stable Living were driving to an appointment when Helmeid made "lewd comments" about two "visually underage girls." According to Argo, the girls appeared to be "10-year olds," and when Helmeid saw them he stated, "I want to get me some of that," which was clearly "alluding to … a sexual thing." Argo responded by stating "that's just not right … that's unacceptable." Helmeid's "housemates even chimed in and were like, why would you say that?" Helmeid grew argumentative, explaining that "nobody should tell me what I can say" and that the girls were "not underage."
¶ 8 On another occasion, Argo and Helmeid were in the car when they passed a "young girl with her mom," and Helmeid stated, "[D]amn, she's sexy" and then added that she had "a nice back end." Argo responded, "[T]hat's literally a 12-year-old [Helmeid]; what the fuck are you saying?" Helmeid again became argumentative, stating that "it's nobody's business but mine who I'm looking at."
¶ 9 Argo further reported that he "repeatedly" saw Helmeid try to get into "physical altercations" with his fellow housemates. And it was reported to Argo, as the house manager, that Helmeid got into a physical altercation with another Stable Living staff member. According to Argo, he received a call reporting that the staff member discovered that Helmeid was urinating into apple juice bottles and trying to make a housemate drink it, but when the staff member questioned Helmeid about it, Helmeid attempted to attack the housemate and began "pushing" the staff member. Argo arrived at Stable Living to find Helmeid sitting next to the housemate "laughing hysterically," and when Argo asked Helmeid why he was laughing, he admitted that the housemate "just drank my urine." Helmeid continued, "I have been peeing in the bottles and feeding it to him." Helmeid also told Argo that "he had been taking and wiping the other resident's pizza in between his butt cheeks and his balls and then feeding [it] to the resident."
¶ 10 During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued for revocation of Helmeid's conditional release. The prosecutor observed that Helmeid was committed to the department's care based on an NGI plea to a charge of second-degree sexual assault of a child. As a result, and due to Helmeid's continued "lack of insight regarding the appropriateness of having sexual thoughts about underage girls," the prosecutor reasoned that Helmeid "is not in a condition that is going to assure public safety if he is allowed to remain in the community." The prosecutor also argued that Helmeid's acts of feeding his housemates urine and pizza that Helmeid rubbed on his buttocks and genitals supported the conclusion that "Helmeid's adjustment to living in the community has not been successful to this point." According to the prosecutor, these acts not only posed "a danger" to the affected housemates, but they also showed that "Helmeid's criminal thinking has not changed."
¶ 11 The circuit court first addressed the allegations that Helmeid made sexual comments about young girls. The court found that it would accept Argo's testimony that "these were clearly underage females around 10 years old." The court noted that the comments Helmeid made about the young girls violated his conditional release rules. The court then addressed Helmeid's reaction when he was confronted about the comments, observing that Helmeid's comments evidenced a "clear lack of progress" toward successfully adjusting to conditional release. Given that lack of progress, the court expressed a "concern about the safety of the public." Accordingly, the court determined that the comments both violated Helmeid's rules of supervision and "show[ed] a concern for the safety of others."
¶ 12 Further, the circuit court found that urinating into bottles to have his housemate drink the urine "clearly is a safety concern." According to the court "deceiving [a] fellow resident into drinking urine could certainly have [an] impact on their health and would also be a violation of [Helmeid's] behavioral rules." The court also addressed Argo's testimony that Helmeid engaged in physical altercations with both staff and fellow residents, concluding that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial