2009AP2445 State v. Sugden

Listen to this article

Sexually Violent Persons
Rule of completeness

In a sexually violent persons trial, the rule of completeness does not require that the jury be informed that, if the respondent were released, his risk of reoffending would be diminished because he would be supervised for 22 years until he is 74 years old.

“On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited from Dr. Pierquet confirmation of this statement from her report: ‘Mr. Sugden presents risk in terms of general antisocial behavior and complying with community rules. There is a risk for opportunistic sex offending.’ Defense counsel requested that the jury be allowed to hear the next sentence: ‘However, these risks should be mitigated by his 22 years of remaining parole supervision in the community until he is age 74-years-10-months old.’ The court denied the request.”
“Wisconsin Stat. § 901.07, often called ‘the rule of completeness,’ provides: ‘When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the party at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.’ Sugden points out that a circuit court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, determine that the rule of completeness requires that an additional portion be introduced into evidence even if it is otherwise inadmissible. See State v. Anderson, 230 Wis. 2d 121, 140-41, 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999). He asserts that the circuit court here erroneously exercised its discretion because it mistakenly applied the law. We disagree.”

“The rule of completeness gives a circuit court the discretion ‘to admit only those statements which are necessary to provide context and prevent distortion.’ State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411-12, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998). Statements about supervision are irrelevant to the issues the jury must decide in determining if a person is sexually violent within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7), and, in particular, are irrelevant to the issue whether a person is ‘dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder that makes it likely that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence.’ Mark, 292 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶37-41. The two sentences the State read accurately present Dr. Pierquet’s opinion on Sugden’s dangerousness without consideration of supervision. Introducing the next sentence to the jury misleads the jury by suggesting that it should take supervision into account in deciding whether it is likely that Sugden will reoffend.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP2445 State v. Sugden

Dist. IV, Richland County, Leineweber, J., Vergeront, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Lang, Donald T., Madison; For Respondent: Sharp, Wm. Andrew, Richland Center; Whelan, Maura F.J., Madison

Full Text