Severance is not required where the 2 charges involving a single act or transaction are so inextricably intertwined so as to make proof of one crime impossible without proof of the other. Holmes v. State, 63 W (2d) 389, 217 NW (2d) 657.
Due process of law was not violated, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion, by denial of defendant's motion to sever 3 counts of sex offenses from a count of first-degree murder. Bailey v. State, 65 W (2d) 331, 222 NW (2d) 871.
In a joint trial on charges of burglary and obstructing an officer, while evidence as to the fabrication of an alibi by defendant was probative as to the burglary, the substantial danger that the jury might employ such evidence as affirmative proof of the elements of that crime, for which the state was required to introduce separate and independent evidence showing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, required the court to administer a clear and certain cautionary instruction that the jury should not consider evidence on the obstructing count as sufficient in itself to find defendant guilty of burglary. Peters v. State, 70 W (2d) 22, 233 NW (2d) 420.
Joinder was not prejudicial to defendant moving for severance where possibly prejudicial effect of inadmissible hearsay regarding other defendant was presumptively cured by instructions. State v. Jennaro, 76 W (2d) 499, 251 NW (2d) 800.
Where codefendant's antagonistic testimony merely corroborates overwhelming prosecution evidence, refusal to grant severance is not abuse of discretion. Haldane v. State, 85 W (2d) 182, 270 NW (2d) 75 (1978).
Joinder of charges against defendant was proper where separate acts exhibited some modus operandi. Francis v. State, 86 W (2d) 554, 273 NW (2d) 310 (1979).
Trial court properly deleted implicating references from codefendant's confession rather than granting defendant's motion for severance under (3). Pohl v. State, 96 W (2d) 290, 291 NW (2d) 554 (1980).
Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying severance motion and failing to caution jury against prejudice where 2 counts were joined. State v. Bettinger, 100 W (2d) 691, 303 NW (2d) 585 (1981).
Joinder is not prejudicial where same evidence would be admissible under 904.04 if there were separate trials. State v. Hall, 103 W (2d) 125, 307 NW (2d) 289 (1981).
Trial court abused discretion in denying motion for severance of codefendants' trials, where accused made initial showing that codefendant's testimony would have established accused's alibi defense and accused's entire defense was based on alibi. State v. Brown, 114 W (2d) 554, 338 NW (2d) 857 (Ct. App. 1983).
Joinder under (2) was proper where both robberies were instigated by one defendant's prostitution and other defendant systematically robbed customers who refused to pay. State v. King, 120 W (2d) 285, 354 NW (2d) 742 (Ct. App. 1984).
Misjoinder was harmless error. State v. Leach, 124 W (2d) 648, 370 NW (2d) 240 (1985).
To be of "same or similar character" under (1), crimes must be of same type, occur over relatively short time period, and evidence as to each must overlap. State v. Hamm, 146 W (2d) 130, 430 NW (2d) 584 (Ct. App. 1988).
Joinder and severance. 1971 WLR 604.
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.
A defendant shall not be determined incompetent to proceed solely because medication has been or is being administered to restore or maintain competency.
The fact that a defendant is not competent to proceed does not preclude any legal objection to the prosecution under s. 971.31
which is susceptible of fair determination prior to trial and without the personal participation of the defendant.
History: 1981 c. 367
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1981: Fundamental fairness precludes criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not mentally competent to exercise his or her constitutional and procedural rights. State ex rel. Matalik v. Schubert, 57 Wis. 2d 315
, 322 (1973).
Sub. (1) states the competency standard in conformity with Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402
(1960) and State ex rel. Haskins v. Dodge County Court, 62 Wis. 2d 250
, 265 (1974). Competency is a judicial rather than a medical determination. Not every mentally disordered defendant is incompetent; the court must consider the degree of impairment in the defendant's capacity to assist counsel and make decisions which counsel cannot make for him or her. See State v. Harper, 57 Wis. 2d 543
(1973); Norwood v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 343
(1976); State v. Albright, 96 Wis. 2d 122
(1980); Pickens v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 549
Sub. (2) clarifies that a defendant who requires medication to remain competent is nevertheless competent; the court may order the defendant to be administered such medication for the duration of the criminal proceedings under s. 971.14 (5) (c).
Sub. (3) is identical to prior s. 971.14 (6). It has been renumbered for better statutory placement, adjacent to the rule which it clarifies. [Bill 765-A]
Competency to stand trial is not necessarily sufficient competency to represent oneself. Pickens v. State, 96 W (2d) 549, 292 NW (2d) 601 (1980).
Defense counsel having reason to doubt competency of client must raise issue with court, strategic considerations notwithstanding. State v. Johnson, 133 W (2d) 207, 395 NW (2d) 176 (1986).
Competency proceedings. 971.14(1)(a)(a)
The court shall proceed under this section whenever there is reason to doubt a defendant's competency to proceed.
If reason to doubt competency arises after the defendant has been bound over for trial after a preliminary examination, or after a finding of guilty has been rendered by the jury or made by the court, a probable cause determination shall not be required and the court shall proceed under sub. (2)
Except as provided in par. (b)
, the court shall not proceed under sub. (2)
until it has found that it is probable that the defendant committed the offense charged. The finding may be based upon the complaint or, if the defendant submits an affidavit alleging with particularity that the averments of the complaint are materially false, upon the complaint and the evidence presented at a hearing ordered by the court. The defendant may call and cross-examine witnesses at a hearing under this paragraph but the court shall limit the issues and witnesses to those required for determining probable cause. Upon a showing by the proponent of good cause under s. 807.13 (2) (c)
, testimony may be received into the record of the hearing by telephone or live audio-visual means. If the court finds that any charge lacks probable cause, it shall dismiss the charge without prejudice and release the defendant except as provided in s. 971.31 (6)
The court shall appoint one or more examiners having the specialized knowledge determined by the court to be appropriate to examine and report upon the condition of the defendant. If an inpatient examination is determined by the court to be necessary, the defendant may be committed to a suitable mental health facility for the examination period specified in par. (c)
, which shall be deemed days spent in custody under s. 973.155
. If the examination is to be conducted by the department of health and family services, the court shall order the individual to the facility designated by the department of health and family services.
Notwithstanding par. (a)
, if the court orders the defendant to be examined by the department or a department facility, the department shall determine where the examination will be conducted, who will conduct the examination and whether the examination will be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis. Any such outpatient examination shall be conducted in a jail or a locked unit of a facility. In any case under this paragraph in which the department determines that an inpatient examination is necessary, the 15-day period under par. (c)
begins upon the arrival of the defendant at the inpatient facility. If an outpatient examination is begun by or through the department, and the department later determines that an inpatient examination is necessary, the sheriff shall transport the defendant to the inpatient facility designated by the department, unless the defendant has been released on bail.
If the defendant has been released on bail, the court may not order an involuntary inpatient examination unless the defendant fails to cooperate in the examination or the examiner informs the court that inpatient observation is necessary for an adequate examination.
Inpatient examinations shall be completed and the report of examination filed within 15 days after the examination is ordered or as specified in par. (am)
, whichever is applicable, unless, for good cause, the facility or examiner appointed by the court cannot complete the examination within this period and requests an extension. In that case, the court may allow one 15-day extension of the examination period. Outpatient examinations shall be completed and the report of examination filed within 30 days after the examination is ordered.
If the court orders that the examination be conducted on an inpatient basis, it shall arrange for the transportation of any defendant not free on bail to the examining facility within a reasonable time after the examination is ordered and for the defendant to be returned to the jail within a reasonable time after receiving notice from the examining facility that the examination has been completed.
The examiner shall personally observe and examine the defendant and shall have access to his or her past or present treatment records, as defined under s. 51.30 (1) (b)
A defendant ordered to undergo examination under this section may receive voluntary treatment appropriate to his or her medical needs. The defendant may refuse medication and treatment except in a situation where the medication or treatment is necessary to prevent physical harm to the defendant or others.
The defendant may be examined for competency purposes at any stage of the competency proceedings by physicians or other experts chosen by the defendant or by the district attorney, who shall be permitted reasonable access to the defendant for purposes of the examination.
The examiner shall submit to the court a written report which shall include all of the following:
A description of the nature of the examination and an identification of the persons interviewed, the specific records reviewed and any tests administered to the defendant.
The examiner's opinion regarding the defendant's present mental capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his or her defense.
If the examiner reports that the defendant lacks competency, the examiner's opinion regarding the likelihood that the defendant, if provided treatment, may be restored to competency within the time period permitted under sub. (5) (a)
If sufficient information is available to the examiner to reach an opinion, the examiner's opinion on whether the defendant needs medication or treatment and whether the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment. The defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment if, because of mental illness, developmental disability, alcoholism or drug dependence, and after the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to accepting the particular medication or treatment have been explained to the defendant, one of the following is true:
The defendant is incapable of expressing an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication or treatment and the alternatives.
The defendant is substantially incapable of applying an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to his or her mental illness, developmental disability, alcoholism or drug dependence in order to make an informed choice as to whether to accept or refuse medication or treatment.
The facts and reasoning, in reasonable detail, upon which the findings and opinions under pars. (b)
The court shall cause copies of the report to be delivered forthwith to the district attorney and the defense counsel, or the defendant personally if not represented by counsel. The report shall not be otherwise disclosed prior to the hearing under this subsection.
If the district attorney, the defendant and defense counsel waive their respective opportunities to present other evidence on the issue, the court shall promptly determine the defendant's competency and, if at issue, competency to refuse medication or treatment for the defendant's mental condition on the basis of the report filed under sub. (3)
. In the absence of these waivers, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Upon a showing by the proponent of good cause under s. 807.13 (2) (c)
, testimony may be received into the record of the hearing by telephone or live audio-visual means. At the commencement of the hearing, the judge shall ask the defendant whether he or she claims to be competent or incompetent. If the defendant stands mute or claims to be incompetent, the defendant shall be found incompetent unless the state proves by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the defendant is competent. If the defendant claims to be competent, the defendant shall be found competent unless the state proves by evidence that is clear and convincing that the defendant is incompetent. If the defendant is found incompetent and if the state proves by evidence that is clear and convincing that the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment, under the standard specified in sub. (3) (dm)
, the court shall make a determination without a jury and issue an order that the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment for the defendant's mental condition and that whoever administers the medication or treatment to the defendant shall observe appropriate medical standards.
If the court determines that the defendant is competent, the criminal proceeding shall be resumed.
If the court determines that the defendant is not competent and not likely to become competent within the time period provided in sub. (5) (a)
, the proceedings shall be suspended and the defendant released, except as provided in sub. (6) (b)
If the court determines that the defendant is not competent but is likely to become competent within the period specified in this paragraph if provided with appropriate treatment, the court shall suspend the proceedings and commit the defendant to the custody of the department of health and family services for placement in an appropriate institution for a period of time not to exceed 12 months, or the maximum sentence specified for the most serious offense with which the defendant is charged, whichever is less. Days spent in commitment under this paragraph are considered days spent in custody under s. 973.155
If the defendant is not subject to a court order determining the defendant to be not competent to refuse medication or treatment for the defendant's mental condition and if the treatment facility determines that the defendant should be subject to such a court order, the treatment facility may file with the court with notice to the counsel for the defendant, the defendant and the district attorney, a motion for a hearing, under the standard specified in sub. (3) (dm)
, on whether the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment. A report on which the motion is based shall accompany the motion and notice of motion and shall include a statement signed by a licensed physician that asserts that the defendant needs medication or treatment and that the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment, based on an examination of the defendant by a licensed physician. Within 10 days after a motion is filed under this paragraph, the court shall, under the procedures and standards specified in sub. (4) (b)
, determine the defendant's competency to refuse medication or treatment for the defendant's mental condition. At the request of the defendant, the defendant's counsel or the district attorney, the hearing may be postponed, but in no case may the postponed hearing be held more than 20 days after a motion is filed under this paragraph.
The defendant shall be periodically reexamined by the treatment facility. Written reports of examination shall be furnished to the court 3 months after commitment, 6 months after commitment, 9 months after commitment and within 30 days prior to the expiration of commitment. Each report shall indicate either that the defendant has become competent, that the defendant remains incompetent but that attainment of competency is likely within the remaining commitment period, or that the defendant has not made such progress that attainment of competency is likely within the remaining commitment period. Any report indicating such a lack of sufficient progress shall include the examiner's opinion regarding whether the defendant is mentally ill, alcoholic, drug dependent, developmentally disabled or infirm because of aging or other like incapacities.
Upon receiving a report under par. (b)
, the court shall proceed under sub. (4)
. If the court determines that the defendant has become competent, the defendant shall be discharged from commitment and the criminal proceeding shall be resumed. If the court determines that the defendant is making sufficient progress toward becoming competent, the commitment shall continue.
If the defendant is receiving medication the court may make appropriate orders for the continued administration of the medication in order to maintain the competence of the defendant for the duration of the proceedings. If a defendant who has been restored to competency thereafter again becomes incompetent, the maximum commitment period under par. (a)
shall be 18 months minus the days spent in previous commitments under this subsection, or 12 months, whichever is less.
If the court determines that it is unlikely that the defendant will become competent within the remaining commitment period, it shall discharge the defendant from the commitment and release him or her, except as provided in par. (b)
. The court may order the defendant to appear in court at specified intervals for redetermination of his or her competency to proceed.
When the court discharges a defendant from commitment under par. (a)
, it may order that the defendant be taken immediately into custody by a law enforcement official and promptly delivered to a facility specified in s. 51.15 (2)
, an approved public treatment facility under s. 51.45 (2) (c)
or an appropriate medical or protective placement facility. Thereafter, detention of the defendant shall be governed by s. 51.15
, 51.45 (11)
or 55.06 (11)
, as appropriate. The district attorney or corporation counsel may prepare a statement meeting the requirements of s. 51.15 (4)
, 51.45 (13) (a)
or 55.06 (11)
based on the allegations of the criminal complaint and the evidence in the case. This statement shall be given to the director of the facility to which the defendant is delivered and filed with the branch of circuit court assigned to exercise criminal jurisdiction in the county in which the criminal charges are pending where it shall suffice, without corroboration by other petitioners, as a petition for commitment under s. 51.20
, 51.45 (13)
or 55.06 (2)
. This section does not restrict the power of the branch of circuit court in which the petition is filed to transfer the matter to the branch of circuit court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under ch. 51
in the county. Days spent in commitment or protective placement pursuant to a petition under this paragraph shall not be deemed days spent in custody under s. 973.155
If a person is committed under s. 51.20
pursuant to a petition under par. (b)
, the county department under s. 51.42
to whose care and custody the person is committed shall notify the court which discharged the person under par. (a)
, the district attorney for the county in which that court is located and the person's attorney of record in the prior criminal proceeding at least 14 days prior to transferring or discharging the defendant from an inpatient treatment facility and at least 14 days prior to the expiration of the order of commitment or any subsequent consecutive order, unless the county department or the department of health and family services has applied for an extension.
Counsel who have received notice under par. (c)
or who otherwise obtain information that a defendant discharged under par. (a)
may have become competent may move the court to order that the defendant undergo a competency examination under sub. (2)
. If the court so orders, a report shall be filed under sub. (3)
and a hearing held under sub. (4)
. If the court determines that the defendant is competent, the criminal proceeding shall be resumed. If the court determines that the defendant is not competent, it shall release him or her but may impose such reasonable nonmonetary conditions as will protect the public and enable the court and district attorney to discover whether the person subsequently becomes competent.
History: 1981 c. 367
; 1985 a. 29
; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 W (2d) xiii (1987); 1987 a. 85
; 1989 a. 31
; Sup. Ct. Order, 158 W (2d) xvii (1990); 1991 a. 32
; 1995 a. 27
s. 9126 (19)
; 1995 a. 268
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1981: Sub. (1) (a) does not require the court to honor every request for an examination. The intent of sub. (1) (a) is to avoid unnecessary examinations by clarifying the threshold for a competency inquiry in accordance with State v. McKnight, 65 Wis. 2d 583
(1974). "Reason to doubt" may be raised by a motion setting forth the grounds for belief that a defendant lacks competency, by the evidence presented in the proceedings or by the defendant's colloquies with the judge or courtroom demeanor. In some cases an evidentiary hearing may be appropriate to assist the court in deciding whether to order an examination under sub. (2). Even when neither party moves the court to order a competency inquiry, the court may be required by due process to so inquire where the evidence raises a sufficient doubt. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375
, 387 (1966); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162
The Wisconsin supreme court has held that a defendant may not be ordered to undergo a competency inquiry unless the court has found probable cause to believe he or she is guilty of the offense charged. State v. McCredden, 33 Wis. 2d 661
(1967). Where this requirement has not been satisfied through a preliminary examination or verdict or finding of guilt prior to the time the competency issue is raised, a special probable cause determination is required. Subsection (1) (b) allows that determination to be made from the allegations in the criminal complaint without an evidentiary hearing unless the defendant submits a particularized affidavit alleging that averments in the criminal complaint are materially false. Where a hearing is held, the issue is limited to probable cause and hearsay evidence may be admitted. See s. 911.01 (4) (c).
Sub. (2) (a) requires the court to appoint one or more qualified examiners to examine the defendant when there is reason to doubt his or her competency. Although the prior statute required the appointment of a physician, this section allows the court to appoint examiners without medical degrees, if their particular qualifications enable them to form expert opinions regarding the defendant's competency.
Sub. (2) (b), (c) and (d) is intended to limit the defendant's stay at the examining facility to that period necessary for examination purposes. In many cases, it is possible for an adequate examination to be made without institutional commitment, expediting the commencement of treatment of the incompetent defendant. Fosdal, The Contributions and Limitations of Psychiatric Testimony, 50 Wis. Bar Bulletin, No. 4, pp. 31-33 (April 1977).
Sub. (2) (e) clarifies the examiner's right of access to the defendant's past or present treatment records, otherwise confidential under s. 51.30.
Sub. (2) (f) clarifies that a defendant on examination status may receive voluntary treatment but, until committed under sub. (5), may not be involuntarily treated or medicated unless necessary for the safety of the defendant or others. See s. 51.61 (1) (f), (g), (h) and (i).
Sub. (2) (g), like prior s. 971.14 (7), permits examination of the defendant by an expert of his or her choosing. It also allows access to the defendant by examiners selected by the prosecution at any stage of the competency proceedings.
Sub. (3) requires the examiner to render an opinion regarding the probability of timely restoration to competency, to assist the court in determining whether an incompetent defendant should be committed for treatment. Incompetency commitments may not exceed the reasonable time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that the defendant will attain competency in the foreseeable future: Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715
, 738 (1972). The new statute also requires the report to include the facts and reasoning which underlie the examiner's clinical findings and opinion on competency.
Sub. (4) is based upon prior s. 971.14 (4). The revision emphasizes that the determination of competency is a judicial matter. State ex rel. Haskins v. Dodge County Court, 62 Wis. 2d 250
(1974). The standard of proof specified in State ex rel. Matalik v. Schubert, 57 Wis. 2d 315
(1973) has been changed to conform to the "clear and convincing evidence" standard of s. 51.20 (13) (e) and Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418
(1979). [but see 1987 Wis. Act 85
Sub. (5) requires, in accordance with Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715
(1972), that competency commitments be justified by the defendant's continued progress toward becoming competent within a reasonable time. The maximum commitment period is established at 18 months, in accordance with State ex rel. Haskins v. Dodge County Court, 62 Wis. 2d 250
(1974) and other data. If a defendant becomes competent while committed for treatment and later becomes incompetent, further commitment is permitted but in no event may the cumulated commitment periods exceed 24 months or the maximum sentence for the offense with which the defendant is charged, whichever is less. State ex rel. Deisinger v. Treffert, 85 Wis. 2d 257
Sub. (6) clarifies the procedures for transition to civil commitment, alcoholism treatment or protective placement when the competency commitment has not been, or is not likely to be, successful in restoring the defendant to competency. The new statute requires the defense counsel, district attorney and criminal court to be notified when the defendant is discharged from civil commitment, in order that a redetermination of competency may be ordered at that stage. State ex rel. Porter v. Wolke, 80 Wis. 2d 197
, 297 N.W. 2d 881
(1977). The procedures specified in sub. (6) are not intended to be the exclusive means of initiating civil commitment proceedings against such persons. See, e.g., In Matter of Haskins, 101 Wis. 2d 176
(Ct. App. 1980). [Bill 765-A]
Judicial Council Note, 1990: [Re amendment of (1) (c)] The McCredden hearing is substantially similar in purpose to the preliminary examination. The standard for admission of telephone testimony should be the same in either proceeding.
[Re amendment of (4) (b)] The standard for admission of telephone testimony at a competency hearing is the same as that for a preliminary examination. See s. 970.03 (13) and NOTE thereto. [Re Order eff. 1-1-91]
Legislature intended by reference to 973.155 in (5) (a) that good time credit be accorded persons committed as incompetent to stand trial. State v. Moore, 167 W (2d) 491, 481 NW (2d) 633 (1992).
Competency hearing may be waived by defense counsel without affirmative assent of defendant. State v. Guck, 176 W (2d) 845, 500 NW (2d) 910 (1993).
Due process requires prosecution to shoulder burden of proving defendant is fit to stand trial once the issue of unfitness has been properly raised. United States ex rel. SEC v. Billingsley, 766 F (2d) 1015 (7th Cir. 1985).
Wisconsin's new competency to stand trial statute. Fosdal and Fullin. WBB Oct. 1982.
The insanity defense: Ready for reform? Fullin. WBB Dec. 1982.
Mental responsibility of defendant. 971.15(1)
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law.
As used in this chapter, the terms "mental disease or defect" do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense which the defendant must establish to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence.
History: 1993 a. 486
It is not a violation of due process to put the burden of the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect on the defendant. State v. Hebard, 50 W (2d) 408, 184 NW (2d) 156.