01-2644 In Re: the Commitment of Bernard Tainter

Listen to this article

“In Laxton, the court determined Wis. Stat. ch. 980 satisfied the due process requirements of Crane. … The court ruled ch. 980’s requirement of proving a nexus between the mental disorder and an individual’s dangerousness implicitly involves proof that the person has a serious difficulty in controlling his or her behavior. The court specifically determined ch. 980 does not require a separate finding of the person’s inability to control his or her behavior to comply with due process. Consequently, we reject Tainter’s claim.”

And, even though defendant’s commitment trial was held in Barron County, instead of Sawyer County where the predicate offense occurred, that did not violate his constitutional rights.

“While the legislature intended to afford individuals in ch. 980 proceedings the constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants, its enactment of a statute specifically addressing venue reveals its intent not to extend a criminal defendant’s right to trial in the county of the offense. Subsections 980.02(4) and (5) specifically deal with venue, while § 980.05(1m) is a general statute addressing constitutional rights. Where a general statute conflicts with a specific statute, the specific statute prevails.”

Defendant’s other arguments are similarly without merit.

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Barron County, Brunner, J., Cane, C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jack E. Schairer, Madison

For Respondent: James C. Babler, Barron; Warren D. Weinstein, Madison