holding, under Wisconsin’s sexually violent person statute, that the state need not produce evidence of a recent overt act to prove the probability of future acts of sexual violence if the committed person was incarcerated at the time the state filed the commitment petition, even though the defendant had been on parole for nine months before his reincarceration in July 1994
How later courts described this case
- holding, under Wisconsin’s sexually violent person statute, that the state need not produce evidence of a recent overt act to prove the probability of future acts of sexual violence if the committed person was incarcerated at the time the state filed the commitment petition, even though the defendant had been on parole for nine months before his reincarceration in July 1994
- finding that Wisconsin statute establishing a civil commitment procedure primarily intended to protect the public and provide concentrated treatment to convicted sexually violent persons does not violate either the Ex Post Facto or Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Wisconsin or United States Constitutions
- concluding that Chapter 980 is “primarily intended to protect the public and to provide concentrated treatment to convicted sexually violent persons, not to punish the sexual offender”
- holding that ch. 980 is not a punitive statute and violates neither the ex post facto nor double jeopardy clauses of the Wisconsin and United States constitutions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). I dissent for the reasons set forth in State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279 , 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995), of even date.