Title: State v. Nordberg

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 84 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1142 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In re the commitment of Glen D. Nordberg: 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
     v. 
Glen D. Nordberg, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 26, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
May 3, 2011 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Jefferson 
 
JUDGE: 
Jacqueline R. Erwin 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J. dissents (Opinion filed). 
ABRAHAMSON, C. J. joins dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there was a brief and oral 
argument by Donald T. Lang, assistant state public defender.  
 
For the petitioner-respondent the cause was argued by 
Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on 
the 
briefs 
was 
J.B. 
Van 
Hollen, 
attorney 
general. 
 
 
2011 WI 84
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2010AP1142   
(L.C. No. 
2010CI000001) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In re the commitment of Glen D. Nordberg: 
 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Glen D. Nordberg, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 26, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Jefferson 
County, Jacqueline R. Erwin, Judge.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   This is a review of an order of 
the circuit court denying Glen D. Nordberg's (Nordberg) petition 
for supervised release.  The issues in this case are identical 
to the issues we decide today in State v. West, 2011 WI 83, __ 
Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __.  The issues presented are whether Wis. 
No. 
  2010AP1142 
2 
 
Stat. § 980.08(4)(cg)1 places the burden of proof in a petition 
for supervised release with an individual committed as a 
sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. ch. 980, and if so, 
whether that allocation of the burden is constitutionally 
permissible.  Nordberg's case is before this court on bypass of 
the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.60. 
¶2 
The facts relevant to Nordberg's petition are as 
follows. 
¶3 
Nordberg was committed as a sexually violent person in 
January 2001.  In the initial evaluation report compiled prior 
to 
his 
commitment 
hearing, 
Nordberg 
was 
diagnosed 
with 
"paraphilia not otherwise specified," cannabis abuse, and 
antisocial personality disorder.  In that report, Nordberg's 
history of sexual offenses included: 
(a) In 1990, at age 15, while sleeping in the basement 
with the 10-year-old victim and her brothers, Nordberg unzipped 
the victim's sleeping bag, took off her clothes, and had sex 
with her, covering her mouth and telling her to "shut up."  
Nordberg was adjudicated delinquent for sexual assault; 
(b) In 
April 
1991, 
at 
age 
16, 
Nordberg 
was 
again 
adjudicated delinquent for false imprisonment and physical abuse 
of a child when he entered the 11-year-old victim's house 
without consent, carried the kicking victim upstairs, held her 
down, and placed his hands down her pants; 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2007-08 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
  2010AP1142 
3 
 
(c) In the summer of 1991, Nordberg was accused of having 
sexual contact with a 13-year-old girl by putting his hands down 
her pants despite her insistence that he stop; 
(d) In April 1992, at age 17, Nordberg was convicted of 
second-degree sexual assault and received four years probation 
for having sex with a 15-year-old girl without consent and by 
force; 
(e) Also in April 1992, Nordberg was accused of having 
nonconsensual sex with a 20-year-old woman whom police described 
as "mentally and intellectually immature for her age"; 
(f) In March 1994, at age 19, Nordberg was convicted of 
sex with a child 16 or older, with testimony that the victim 
also made repeated requests for Nordberg to stop.  For this 
offense, he was sentenced to nine months in jail.  
¶4 
Nordberg's non-sexual criminal history included, from 
August 
1986 
through 
September 
1991: 
disorderly 
conduct, 
vandalism, 
criminal 
damage 
to 
property, 
and 
"harassment, 
disorderly conduct, threats" violations.  One of the harassment 
violations involved contact with a victim of sexual assault.  
Nordberg was also convicted of manufacture and delivery of a 
controlled substance.  Overall, the report indicated that 
probable cause existed for Nordberg's civil commitment.  
¶5 
On January 24, 2001, a jury found Nordberg to be a 
sexually violent person pursuant to Wis. Stat. ch. 980, and he 
was committed to Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center.  Since that 
time, Nordberg has submitted several petitions for supervised 
No. 
  2010AP1142 
4 
 
release or discharge, including the July 2009 supervised release 
petition from which this appeal stemmed.  
¶6 
At Nordberg's July 2009 supervised release hearing, 
Dr. Luis Rosell testified that he believed Nordberg satisfied 
the criteria for release under ch. 980.  He indicated that 
Nordberg had shown "very positive" treatment progress and that 
Nordberg was one of the patients who had progressed the most 
among all the individuals he had ever seen.  However, Dr. Rosell 
also 
diagnosed 
Nordberg 
with 
pedophilia 
and 
antisocial 
personality disorder, disorders that he opined were not as 
problematic 
as 
when 
Nordberg 
was 
first 
committed, 
but 
nonetheless still existed.   
¶7 
Dr. Rosell indicated that based on risk factors for 
recidivism, Nordberg had a 30 to 48 percent risk of committing a 
sexually violent crime in the next ten years.  Still, Dr. Rosell 
believed Nordberg was "ready for the next step" as he had done 
everything asked of him in treatment.  Further evidence 
indicated Nordberg had been working on a relapse prevention plan 
for four years, that Nordberg recognized his own drug and 
alcohol abuse, and that he was open to further treatment.  Lloyd 
Sinclair, an associate treatment director at Sand Ridge, also 
testified that Nordberg was meaningfully engaged in treatment.  
However, Sinclair expressed uncertainty regarding Nordberg's 
continued sexual deviancy, and pointed to Nordberg's prior 
failures on supervision as cause for concern that he would be 
more likely to reoffend.   
No. 
  2010AP1142 
5 
 
¶8 
Taking this evidence into consideration, the circuit 
court denied Nordberg's petition for supervised release.  The 
court read Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4)(cg) as placing the burden on 
the committed individual to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that supervised release is warranted, and found that 
Nordberg had not met that burden.   
¶9 
In 
February 
2010 
Nordberg 
filed 
a 
motion 
for 
reconsideration of his supervised release hearing or a new 
trial, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 908.08(4)(cg) does not allocate 
the burden of proof to any party, but rather requires the court 
to make a determination based on all the evidence.  In the 
alternative, Nordberg argued that if the burden were on the 
individual, a standard of "clear and convincing" evidence would 
be too onerous, and the standard of "preponderance of the 
evidence" should apply instead.  The circuit court denied the 
motion, and the instant appeal resulted.   
¶10 For the reasons set forth in West, we affirm the 
circuit 
court's 
decision. 
 
We 
hold 
that 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 980.08(4)(cg) unambiguously places the burden of proof on the 
committed individual, and that policy considerations dictate 
that the individual bear his burden of persuasion by clear and 
convincing evidence.  We further hold that requiring an 
individual lawfully committed under ch. 980 as a sexually 
violent person to carry the burden of proof in a petition for 
supervised release does not violate the due process or equal 
protection 
clauses 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
and 
United 
States 
No. 
  2010AP1142 
6 
 
Constitutions.  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the 
circuit court. 
 
By the Court.—The order of the circuit court is affirmed. 
 
 
No.  2010AP1142.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶11 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  For the reasons 
set forth in my dissent in State v. West, 2011 WI 83, __ 
Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __, I likewise dissent in this case.   
¶12 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.  
 
 
No.  2010AP1142.awb 
 
 
 
1