State v. Watson
| Decision Date | 29 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1067,95-1067 |
| Citation | 227 Wis.2d 167,595 N.W.2d 403 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, v. John J. WATSON, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the petitioner-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued by Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
For the respondent-respondent there were briefs and oral argument by Richard D. Martin, assistant state public defender.
This case presents questions of evidence and procedure in the application of Wisconsin's Sexually Violent Person Commitments statute, popularly known as the Sexual Predator Law. 1
¶2 The State of Wisconsin (State) seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals which affirmed a circuit court order dismissing the "sexual predator" commitment petition filed against John J. Watson (Watson). 2 After an evidentiary hearing, the Dane County Circuit Court, Angela B. Bartell, Judge, dismissed the State's petition on grounds that the State had failed to establish probable cause that Watson's conviction for false imprisonment in 1980 was a "sexually motivated" violent offense. In this review, we are asked to decide several questions, including:
1. Does a clinical psychologist who is qualified at a hearing to testify as an expert, properly testify as an expert when he offers an opinion as to a defendant's "sexual motivation" in committing an offense? Our answer is yes.
2. Is a clinical psychologist, in forming an expert opinion, entitled to rely on the contents of a Presentence Investigation (PSI), including an inadmissible hearsay statement of the defendant that is part of the written narrative of a victim prepared for the PSI? Our answer is yes.
3. Is the opinion of a clinical psychologist who relies in whole or in part on inadmissible hearsay evidence itself admissible in evidence? Our answer is yes.
4. Does a psychologist's opinion, based solely on a hearsay statement of the defendant that is reported in a PSI but disputed by the defendant, constitute probable cause to believe that defendant's offense was "sexually motivated"? Our answer is no.
¶3 Notwithstanding our answer to the last question, after carefully reviewing the record of the probable cause hearing, including the nature and circumstances of the predicate offense, the exhibits offered and received, and the testimony of the expert witness, we are convinced that the State succeeded in establishing probable cause. Consequently, the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's order dismissing the commitment petition is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
¶4 The respondent, John Watson (D.O.B.7-09-21), has a long criminal record dating back to the 1940s. In 1953, he was convicted of carnal knowledge and abuse of a minor. In 1972, he was convicted of attempted rape and two counts of endangering safety by conduct regardless of life for an incident in 1971. In 1972, he was also convicted of burglary and battery for an incident in 1969. 3 By January of 1980, Watson, then 58, had been released on parole and been living in the community for about two years.
¶5 On January 21, 1980, shortly after 7:00 a.m., Watson picked up a young woman hitchhiker on South Park Street in Madison. The woman was heading to Old University Hospital. According to a criminal complaint, Watson drove north on Park Street; then, departing from the normal route, he turned left and entered the Arboretum. Watson assured his passenger that nothing was amiss but suddenly he pulled off into a parking area and flashed a knife. Watson reportedly stated: "Do as I say or I'll beat you." The young woman began to struggle and Watson responded by hitting her about the head with what she believed was a hammer wrapped in a white cloth. Watson forced the woman into the back seat, forced her hands behind her back, taped them together, put a cloth in her mouth, then wrapped white tape around her head. The young woman told police that Watson hit her between six and twelve times with the hammer and threatened her with more. Climbing back into the driver's seat, Watson drove off heading for the beltline highway. 4 While he was driving, his passenger worked to remove the tape from her hands and mouth. After getting loose, she managed to open the passenger door and dangle her right leg out the door in an effort to attract attention. When Watson slowed the car to deal with the situation, the victim succeeded in rolling out the door onto the highway, noting the license number of Watson's tan Pontiac as it sped away.
¶6 Within an hour, Watson picked up another young woman hitchhiker while driving east on the beltline. According to the criminal complaint, the woman explained to Watson where she worked and then became alarmed when he failed to stop at her turnoff. Watson subsequently drove his car off the highway onto a side street and stopped. When the young woman attempted to escape, he grabbed her around the neck and began striking her with a hammer. She managed to break loose and get out of the car. He followed her with the hammer and struck her repeatedly and dragged her back inside the car. After a lengthy beating, the young woman again escaped, falling into a ditch. She eventually secured help. The criminal complaint quoted the emergency room doctor at a Madison hospital as saying that the victim received at least 17 blows to the skull as well as blows to the facial area and extremities. The doctor reportedly required four hours to stitch up the victim's wounds.
¶7 Watson was arrested shortly after these incidents when his tan Pontiac was spotted by a McFarland police officer. Before his apprehension, he drove wildly, attempting to escape the officer. When Watson was finally arrested, police found blood throughout the interior of his vehicle. Watson himself was carrying two knives. He was identified by both victims from photo line-ups.
¶8 On January 24, 1980, the State charged Watson with one count of battery in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.19(1) (1979-80), 5 two counts of false imprisonment in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.30, 6 and one count of endangering safety by conduct regardless of life in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.30. 7 On February 14, 1980, he was charged as a repeater. No preliminary examination was ever held.
¶9 On February 20, 1980, Watson pled guilty to all counts, stating in part that "some things in there [the complaint] were not quite accurate pertaining to me and pertaining to the young ladies, but in the end result, it wouldn't make any difference...."
¶10 A sentencing hearing was held on April 9, 1980. Prior to the hearing, Robert Moore, Watson's parole agent with the State Bureau of Community Corrections, prepared a 14-page Presentence Investigation (PSI). Among other things, Moore's PSI comprehensively repeated the allegations of the criminal complaint, detailed an interview between the agent and the first victim, quoted at length a written statement prepared by the second victim, quoted from Watson's statement at the plea hearing and his explanations to his agent, and reported Watson's claim that in both incidents the young ladies insulted him and made racial remarks.
¶11 The written statement of the second victim contained two allegations not present in the criminal complaint. Victim II described the assault:
Then he slams on the brakes. I grabbed for the door handle, but he got me by the hair and pulled my head down, holding me in a headlock with his right arm.
he says.
Victim II also wrote of her injuries:
"Get in the backseat, bitch, stay in the back." He pushes my left leg into my chest and violently beats my groin with the hammer....
[At the hospital] Someone asks if I'm menstruating. I say no. I feel my crotch. I wonder why. Then some of the beating comes back to me.... Moving around for each Xray makes my eyes water. Everything hurts so much. My legs are screaming painful....
¶12 At the April 9, 1980, sentencing hearing, Watson and his attorney, Gridley Hall, were given an opportunity to go off and study the PSI together. They came back and took exception to Victim II's statements about the sexual nature of the assault:
Mr. Hall: Your Honor, there are two matters which are, I think, of major significance that my client takes issue with in the pre-sentence and a few other minor details.
The first matter would be statements on pages 6 and 7 with reference to the sexual nature of the attack on [Victim II], and there is a statement which Mr. Watson allegedly made, the remark is: "Now you are going to suck me off." Mr. Watson denies ever having made that statement. On page 7 there is an allegation that he beat the victim in the groin area. He also specifically denies that allegation.
...
I would move, Your Honor, to delete from the pre-sentence investigation the items which I have mentioned which we find to be irrelevant.
¶13 Victim II was not present during the sentencing hearing. When Assistant District Attorney John Burr made his sentencing recommendation, he said in part:
The facts of this case are, I think, fully documented for the Court. I guess the evidence that we possess would show that [Victim II] was struck in the groin area with a hammer. Her injuries are consistent with that. I object to the Court striking that from the pre-sentence.
¶14 In imposing sentence, Dane County Circuit Judge Angela Bartell said in part:
The court will not strike from the record the reference in the pre-sentence report to the sexual nature of the attack on [Victim II]. There is no evidence that has been produced in contradiction of that pre-sentence report and that particular factual allegation. That stays on the record, as well as Mr. Watson's denial of it, and that is a typical dispute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...§ 907.03 (2019-20).11 Section 907.03 is an evidentiary rule that applies in both civil and criminal contexts. State v. Watson , 227 Wis. 2d 167, 200, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999). Our case law is also clear that § 907.03 is not a hearsay exception; the facts or data relied on by the expert do not ......
-
Martindale v. Ripp
...whether a witness is qualified as an expert to offer opinion testimony pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 907.02 (1997-98).3State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167, 186, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999); Farrell v. John Deere Co., 151 Wis. 2d 45, 70, 443 N.W.2d 50 (Ct. App. 1989),cited in 7 Daniel D. Blinka, Wisconsin......
-
State v. Greve, 02-2332-CR.
...defendant has a right to challenge any statement in the PSI that he or she believes is inaccurate or incomplete. State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167, 194, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999). ¶ 12. In recent years, some defense counsel have submitted sentencing memoranda prior to sentencing. Those memoranda......
-
State v. St. George
...91 Mich. L. Rev. 827, 829-30 (1993). 24. Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶ 28, 246 Wis. 2d 67, 629 N.W.2d 698; State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167, 186, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999). 25. King v. King, 224 Wis. 2d 235, 248, 590 N.W.2d 480 26. Martindale, 2001 WI 113, ¶ 29 (quoting State v. Wollman, 8......
-
Table of cases
...99 N.W.2d 119 (1959), Form 1-64 State v. Peters , 192 Wis. 2d 674, 687, 534 N.W.2d 867 (Ct. App. 1995), Form 10-02 State v. Watson , 227 Wis. 2d 167, 187, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), Form 10-02 State Bank v. Elsen , 128 Wis. 2d 508, 517, 383 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1986), Form 1-62 State Farm Mut. ......