Tuesday, July 02, 2002  10:23:31 PM  
  
 
 
 
  The Janesville Gazette (Janesville, Wisconsin)
     
  
      
  
 


 Local News Agriculture Business Community Consumer Death notices Education Environment Government Health care Labor Obituaries Outdoors Police, fire, courts Sports Teens, youth Transportation Weather 

  
     
SPECIAL SECTIONS


FEATURED ADVERTISER


 
 



» Send us your news tips

» Send us a letter to the editor

» Contact editors, news department staff

 
   

  Supreme Court upholds sexual predator law in two cases 

(Published Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:16:51 AM CDT)

By JR Ross/Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. -- A split state Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin's sexual predator law in two cases Monday, ruling in both that the statute allowing officials to lock up sex offenders beyond their original release date is constitutional.

In one case, the court voted 5-2 that amendments the Legislature made to the law limiting an offender's ability to obtain supervised release after being deemed a sexually violent person were constitutional.

In another case, the court ruled 4-2 that evidence offenders will commit sexually violent acts again implicitly proves they have difficulty in controlling their behavior, a requirement to keep them locked up under the law.

Justice David Prosser, who helped write the law while in the Legislature, did not participate in the second case.

Under the 1994 law, the state must prove offenders suffer from a mental disorder that makes them a substantial risk to re-offend if they are released. Patients are detained indefinitely after they complete their prison terms and can be released only on a judge's order in the county in which they were committed.

"The statute continues to serve the compelling state interests of treatment of the dangerously mentally ill and protection of the public, and is narrowly tailored to meet those interests," Justice Jon Wilcox wrote for the majority in the first case.

The two cases were the latest decided by the court regarding the sexual predator law. Attorney General James Doyle said the justices now have answered most of the major legal questions regarding the statute, each time upholding its constitutionality.

More than 230 people in Wisconsin are being held under the law, he said.

In the first case, Tory Rachel challenged the sexual predator law shortly after a Kenosha County Circuit Court judge found in 1994 there was probable cause to believe he was a sexually violent person. After a series of delays, his case was scheduled for trial in 1999. On the day of his trial, Rachel filed a motion to dismiss because he argued several amendments to the law rendered it unconstitutional.

A number of the amendments were technical. One changed the law to allow a person under institutional care to petition the court for supervised release after a minimum of 18 months rather than the previous six months.

The circuit court judge denied the motion, and Rachel was committed after the trial under the sexual predator law. Rachel appealed the decision, and the appeals court sent it directly to the state Supreme Court. The justices upheld the circuit court decision.

Rachel's attorney, Richard Hart, was in court Monday and did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press.

John Lee Laxton was convicted in 1987 in Milwaukee County of three counts of second-degree sexual assault and two counts of child abduction. Five months after he was paroled in 1994, Laxton was arrested for window peeping at two young girls. His parole was revoked, and he was convicted of disorderly conduct.

Shortly before he was to be released in 1998, the state filed a motion to commit him under the sexual predator law.

The judge explained to the jury at his trial that to find Laxton a sexually violent person, the state must prove three facts beyond a reasonable doubt: that he had been convicted of a sexually violent offense, that he has a mental disorder and that he is a danger to others because his mental disorder creates a substantial probability that he will engage in sexually violent acts.

A jury found he was a sexually violent person, and he was committed under the predator law. He appealed, arguing the jury was instructed improperly on the meaning of sexually violent offenses, which the circuit court denied. An appeals court upheld the decision, and Laxton appealed to the Supreme Court.

Margaret A. Maroney, an assistant state public defender who represented Laxton, said she plans to appeal the state court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.