99-3164 In Re: the Commitment of John Lee Laxton v. John Lee Laxton

Listen to this article

“We conclude that Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is constitutional. Based on recent precedent addressing due process challenges to ch. 980, and particularly the United States Supreme Court’s guidance in Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002), which addressed a similar due process issue, we conclude that such a civil commitment does not require a separate finding that the individual’s mental disorder involves serious difficulty for such person to control his or her behavior. …

“Specifically, we conclude that evidence showing that the person’s mental disorder predisposes such individual to engage in acts of sexual violence, and evidence establishing a substantial probability that such person will again commit such acts, necessarily and implicitly includes proof that such person’s mental disorder involves serious difficulty in controlling his or her behavior. Such evidence distinguishes such a person from the dangerous but typical recidivist.”

Judgment affirmed. …

“We further have concluded that at Laxton’s trial the jury was properly instructed and that the jury instructions did not deprive Laxton of due process of law. The instructions were nearly identical to the statutory language in Wis. Stat. ch. 980, which we have concluded satisfies the requirements of due process. Accordingly, by concluding that Laxton has a mental disorder and that his mental disorder creates a substantial probability that he will again engage in acts of sexual violence, the jury necessarily and implicitly concluded that Laxton’s mental disorder involved serious difficulty for him in controlling his behavior.”

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J., with whom Bradley, J., joins. “I conclude that the jury instructions in the present case, when taken as a whole, did not inform a reasonable jury that it must determine whether Laxton had serious difficulty in controlling his behavior.”

Court of Appeals; Crooks, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Margaret A. Maroney, Madison

For Respondent: Eileen W. Pray, James E. Doyle, Madison