Title: State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 59 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2864-CRAC   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-
Petitioner, 
     v. 
Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 341 Wis. 2d 492, 815 N.W.2d 407 
(Ct. App. 2012 – Unpublished)     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 3, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 25, 2013   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit    
 
COUNTY: 
Racine    
 
JUDGE: 
Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, GABLEMAN, JJ., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
plaintiff-appellant-cross-respondent-petitioner, 
the cause was argued by Marguerite M. Moeller, assistant 
attorney general, with whom on the briefs was J.B. Van Hollen, 
attorney general.  
 
 
For the defendant-respondent-cross-appellant, there was a 
brief by Michael F. Hunt, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt, 
and Kohler & Hart, S.C., Milwaukee, and Mark D. Richards and 
Richards & Hall, S.C., Racine, and Stephen J. Meyer and Meyer 
Law, Madison. The cause was argued by Mark D. Richards. 
 
 
 
2
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Kathleen Quinn, 
Milwaukee, on behalf of T.S.  
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Eric J. Wilson and 
Dustin B. Brown and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison, on behalf of 
the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault.  
 
  
 
 
2013 WI 59
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2864-CRAC 
(L.C. No. 
2011CF376) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-
 
Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 3, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the court of appeals.  Cause 
remanded, affirmed as modified. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  This is a review of an unpublished 
opinion of the court of appeals that affirmed in part and 
reversed in part an order of the circuit court.1  Three issues 
are presented for review:   
                                                 
1 State v. Johnson, No. 2011AP2864-CRAC, unpublished slip 
op. (Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2012), affirming in part and reversing in 
part 
the 
circuit 
court 
for 
Racine 
County, 
Eugene 
A. 
Gasiorkiewicz, J., presiding. 
No. 
2011AP2864-CRAC   
 
2 
 
¶2 
First, should State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 
N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), be overruled because its holding 
rests on an erroneous premise that Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 
U.S. 39 (1987) mandates the pretrial in camera review of 
privately-held, privileged records?  A majority of the court 
would not overrule Shiffra.  Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice 
Bradley, Justice Crooks, and Justice Ziegler conclude that 
Shiffra should not be overruled, observing that this court has 
reaffirmed or applied Shiffra in a number of cases.2  Justice 
Roggensack concludes that Shiffra should not be applied to 
mental health records that are privately held and privileged. 
¶3 
Second, if Shiffra is not overruled, has the defendant 
met his burden under State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 
356, 646 N.W.2d 298, to make an initial showing of materiality 
entitling him to an in camera review of the privately-held 
records?  A majority of the court concludes that he has met the 
requisite burden to make an initial showing of materiality.  
Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice Bradley, and Justice Crooks 
conclude that the defendant has satisfied his burden under 
Green.  Justice Roggensack and Justice Ziegler conclude that the 
defendant has not satisfied his burden. 
                                                 
2 See, e.g., Johnson v. Rogers Memorial Hosp., Inc., 2005 WI 
114, ¶¶72-73, 283 Wis. 2d 384, 700 N.W.2d 27; State v. Allen, 
2004 WI 106, ¶31, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433; State v. 
Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 356, 646 N.W.2d 298; State v. 
Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, 250 Wis. 2d 407, 640 N.W.2d 93; State v. 
Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372, 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997); State v. 
Speese, 199 Wis. 2d 597, 545 N.W.2d 510 (1996). 
No. 
2011AP2864-CRAC   
 
3 
 
¶4 
Third, if Shiffra is not overruled, may the circuit 
court require production of the privately-held, privileged 
mental health records in this case for in camera review when the 
17-year-old 
privilege-holder 
refuses 
to 
consent 
to 
their 
release?  Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley agree 
with Judge Brown’s dissent in the present case at the court of 
appeals that the circuit court may require production of the 
records for an in camera review and that Shiffra does not 
necessarily require the suppression of the privilege-holder’s 
testimony if she refuses to release her records.3  They would 
affirm the circuit court’s determination in this case, which has 
already balanced the competing interests, concluding that 
suppression of the privilege-holder’s testimony is neither 
required nor appropriate as a sanction here.4  Justice Crooks and 
Justice Ziegler conclude that the court may not require 
production, but their rationales differ.  Justice Crooks 
concludes that the privilege-holder may not testify without 
                                                 
3 State v. Johnson, No. 2011AP2864-CRAC, ¶24, unpublished 
slip op. (Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2012) (Brown, J. dissenting).  As 
Judge Brown concluded, “the [psychiatrist’s] privilege and the 
right to present a defense are . . . two equally conflicting 
interests and neither should be given absolute preference over 
the other. . . . When there are two competing and compelling 
societal interests, it is for the court to balance these 
interests on a case-by-case basis.”  Id., ¶¶26-27. 
4 Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley would not 
affirm the circuit court’s decision to give a curative jury 
instruction regarding any inferences to be taken from the 
privilege-holder’s invocation of her privilege because Wis. 
Stat. § 905.13 prohibits such an instruction or other comment by 
judge or counsel. 
No. 
2011AP2864-CRAC   
 
4 
 
voluntarily producing the records under Shiffra.  He is 
concerned about the defendant’s ability to present a meaningful 
defense.  Justice Ziegler concludes that the privilege-holder 
may testify because the defendant has not satisfied his burden 
under Green.  Justice Roggensack concludes that the court cannot 
require production of the privately-held, privileged mental 
health records, and therefore that the privilege-holder may 
testify. 
 
Thus, 
under 
varying 
rationales, 
Chief 
Justice 
Abrahamson, Justice Bradley, Justice Roggensack, and Justice 
Ziegler agree that in this case, the privilege-holder may 
testify and need not produce the records. 
¶5 
As a result of the responses to the above third issue, 
we determine the following: 
¶6 
First, under varying rationales, a majority of the 
court concludes that in this case, the circuit court may not 
require production of the privately-held, privileged mental 
health records for in camera review.  
¶7 
Second, under varying rationales, a majority of the 
court concludes that the privilege-holder may testify in this 
case.   
¶8 
Although there is a majority regarding each issue 
presented, 
we 
limit 
our 
writing 
because 
of 
the 
varied 
rationales. 
¶9 
Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is 
modified and affirmed.  The cause is remanded to the circuit 
court for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the circuit court 
may not require production of the privately-held, privileged 
No. 
2011AP2864-CRAC   
 
5 
 
mental health records for in camera review.  However, upon 
remand, the privilege-holder may be called to testify in this 
case. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
modified and affirmed and, as modified, the cause is remanded to 
the circuit court.  
¶10 Justices David T. Prosser, Jr. and Michael J. Gableman 
did not participate. 
No. 
2011AP2864-CRAC   
 
 
 
1