State v. Magett
| Decision Date | 16 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010AP1639–CR.,2010AP1639–CR. |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Erick O. MAGETT, Defendant–Appellant–Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs by Andrew R. Hinkel, assistant state public defender, and oral argument by Andrew R. Hinkel.
For the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was argued by Eileen W. Pray, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.
¶ 1 This fact-intensive case focuses on the second phase of a bifurcated criminal trial in which the defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI). The defendant, Erick Magett (Magett), was found guilty of a felony in the first phase of the trial. The jury was expected to determine whether the defendant met his burden on his NGI plea in the second phase. Under circumstances that will be explained, the Grant County Circuit Court, George S. Curry, Judge, dismissed Magett's NGI plea before commencement of the second phase in which the jury was to determine Magett's “responsibility” for the crime. We review here an unpublished decision of the court of appeals 1 affirming the defendant's conviction. The issues presented may be stated as follows.
¶ 2 First, did the circuit court apply the wrong substantive law by requiring the defendant to produce expert testimony to carry his burden in the responsibility phase of a bifurcated criminal trial in which the issue was whether the defendant was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect?
¶ 3 Second, did the circuit court err when it ruled that the defendant was not competent to testify as to his mental condition in the responsibility phase of a bifurcated criminal trial in which the issue was whether the defendant was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect?
¶ 4 Third, did the circuit court err in dismissing the defendant's NGI plea before the responsibility phase of the trial, after the defendant indicated that he would not produce any evidence of his mental disease or defect in the responsibility phase except: (1) his own testimony that he “blacked out” for a few seconds when he punched a corrections officer; and (2) a video of the battery, both of which had been presented to the jury during the guilt phase of the trial?
¶ 5 Fourth, if the circuit court made any errors with respect to the responsibility phase of the defendant's trial, were the errors harmless?
¶ 6 We reach the following conclusions.
¶ 7 First, as a general rule, a defendant is not required to present expert testimony to prove the elements of his NGI defense. State v. Leach, 124 Wis.2d 648, 666, 370 N.W.2d 240 (1985). Ordinarily, the defendant will offer expert testimony. He may also offer testimony by lay witnesses as well as his own testimony. As a practical matter, a defendant should offer evidence to supplement his own testimony because a defendant who testifies in the responsibility phase of his trial without corroboration is likely to be viewed as self-serving inasmuch as the purpose of his defense is to escape responsibility for his already established criminal conduct. In only an exceptional case with extraordinary facts may a defendant carry his burden in the responsibility phase of a criminal trial by relying solely on his own testimony.
¶ 8 Second, a defendant is competent to testify as to his mental condition in the responsibility phase of a criminal trial. However, a lay defendant does not have an unlimited, categorical right to give opinion testimony on the issue of mental disease or defect.
¶ 9 Third, a court should normally permit a defendant to offer his evidence in the responsibility phase of a trial before the court rules on his NGI defense. By allowing the defendant an opportunity to offer all his evidence, the court ensures that any dismissal 2 or directed verdict is informed by full consideration of the defendant's position, conforms to Wis. Stat. § 805.14(1) and (3) or (4) (2009–10),3 and reduces the procedural grounds for appeal. There will not be many cases where the defendant's position is so bereft of merit that the court can conclude that there is no jury question as a matter of law before the defendant presents his evidence.
¶ 10 Fourth, we conclude here that the evidence to support the defendant's NGI defense was insufficient as a matter of law, so that any errors by the circuit court in refusing to allow the trial to proceed to the responsibility phase were harmless. We conclude that no reasonable jury would have determined that the defendant had a mental disease or defect that caused him to lack substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
¶ 11 Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' decision to uphold the defendant's conviction.
¶ 12 This case arises out of an incident at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF) in Boscobel in Grant County. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections describes WSPF as “Wisconsin's most secure facility,” designed to manage and control “inmates who demonstrate serious behavioral problems in other settings.” See Wisconsin Secure Program Facility,—Wis. Dep't of Corr., http:// doc. wi. gov/ families- visitors/ find- facility/ wisconsin-secure-program-facility (last visited July 10, 2014). Id.
¶ 13 Erick O. Magett was an inmate at WSPF on January 20, 2007. Magett, then 41, had a long criminal history before he was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in 1990 and sentenced to life in prison.
¶ 14 The events that led to the charge in this case were set in motion by Magett's frustrations with his access to health care. In August 2005 Magett slipped in the shower and began complaining of pelvic pain. Magett testified that he had X-rays taken in October 2006. Although a medical technician told Magett that he had a fractured left pelvis, the prison doctor disagreed and informed Magett that there was no fracture. Magett expressed frustration about the level of medical treatment he was receiving and wrote the warden to say, “I do not want to put my hands on your officers, but if this keep [sic] going on, somebody going [sic] to end up getting hurt.” He also told the prison psychiatrist that he knew it would be wrong to take out his frustrations about the lack of medical treatment on the officers.
¶ 15 Magett's statements about hurting officers led WSPF to place him on restrictions. Before WSPF allowed Magett to receive his meals, it required him to sit down with his legs crossed, put his head against the back wall, and place his hands behind his back. Magett claimed that as a result of a fractured pelvis, he could not cross his legs when sitting down. Because Magett would not sit in the required position, WSPF withheld his meals. Magett claimed that WSPF refused to give him his meal on several occasions 4 and that he was unable to resolve the issue through written or oral complaints. Therefore, on January 20, 2007, Magett decided to cover the camera in his cell because he knew that obscuring the camera would attract attention and eventually lead to a team of officers forcibly removing him from his cell. WSPF assembled a show-of-force team to extract Magett from his cell, and the team members suited up in protective equipment consisting of helmets and padded jumpsuits. It was during the extraction of Magett from his cell that Magett committed the battery that gave rise to this case.
¶ 16 Before the show-of-force team entered Magett's cell, both the team's supervisor and the team's leader asked Magett if he would come out voluntarily. Magett refused. In preparation for the cell extraction, and unbeknownst to the show-of-force team, Magett spread hand cream on his cell floor to slow the officers down. He claimed that the purpose of the hand cream was to hinder the officers and prevent them from hurting him. Magett put his mattress on the ground and stood on it so that he would not slip on the lubricated floor. Then he removed his shirt and assumed a “boxer stance” with raised fists as he waited for the team to enter.
¶ 17 As the team entered the cell, Magett's ingenuity with the hand cream caused several officers to lose their footing. Magett punched the officers in the helmet area as they struggled toward him. In the brief period of chaos, one of Magett's punches caused a cut on Officer Jeremy Caya's (Officer Caya) chin. Magett later testified (in the guilt phase of his trial) that during the incident, he “pretty much blacked out.” When asked to clarify what he meant by “blacked out,” Magett responded, “It was like I'm just gone.” He insisted that he did not remember hurting Officer Caya, but he did remember the officers taking him out of his cell. The alleged “blackout” lasted from the time the officers came into the cell until the time they restrained him against the cell wall—an interval of a few seconds. Corrections officers videotaped the incident, and the jury saw the tape several times during the guilt phase of the trial.
¶ 18 Although Magett claimed not to remember hitting Officer Caya, he did seem to remember swinging his fists at the corrections officers. The following exchange occurred during Magett's direct examination by his attorney:
Magett went on to testify that he blacked out, and his attorney questioned him about how the corrections officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stietz
...codifies Wisconsin's harmless error rule.20 ¶62 The harmless error inquiry raises a question of law that this court decides. State v. Magett , 2014 WI 67, ¶29, 355 Wis. 2d 617, 850 N.W.2d 42. ¶63 A defendant's substantial rights remain unaffected (that is, the error is harmless) if it is cl......
-
State v. Lagrone
...are also required at the responsibility phase of the resulting bifurcated trial established by Wis. Stat. § 971.165. See generally State v. Magett, 2014 WI 67, ¶¶ 33–40, 355 Wis.2d 617, 850 N.W.2d 42(discussing nature and history of bifurcated trials resulting from NGI pleas).¶ 4 Lagrone do......
-
State v. Nieves
...of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." State v. Moore , 2015 WI 54, ¶ 94, 363 Wis.2d 376, 864 N.W.2d 827 (quoting State v. Magett , 2014 WI 67, ¶ 29, 355 Wis.2d 617, 850 N.W.2d 42 ). The State bears the burden of proving the error was harmless. State v. Harris , 2008 WI 15, ¶ 113, ......
-
118th St. Kenosha, LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Transp.
...circuit court erred.”).3 State v. Rocha–Mayo, 2014 WI 57, ¶ 100, 355 Wis.2d 85, 848 N.W.2d 832 (Prosser, J., dissenting).4 State v. Magett, 2014 WI 67, ¶ 96, 355 Wis.2d 617, 850 N.W.2d 42 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting).5 State ex rel. Swan v. Elections Bd., 133 Wis.2d 87, 108, 394 N.W.2d 73......