Opinion ID: 2771203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State v. Knipfer

Text: ¶13 It is undisputed that Knipfer was deemed to be a sexually violent person and was involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 on October 1, 2003. He has been under Chapter 980 commitment ever since. ¶14 In the seven and a half years between his Chapter 980 commitment and Wisconsin's adoption of the Daubert evidentiary standard, Knipfer filed three petitions for discharge and much other correspondence with the committing court. The Daubert standard was not a Wisconsin evidentiary standard during any prior proceeding in Knipfer's Chapter 980 commitment. ¶15 On May 11, 2012, more than one year after Wisconsin adopted the Daubert evidentiary standard, Knipfer filed a petition for discharge from his involuntary Chapter 980 commitment. The petition relied on Knipfer's expert's opinion that Knipfer was no longer a sexually violent person. The 8 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 State's expert opined that Knipfer was still a sexually violent person and should not be discharged from Chapter 980 commitment. ¶16 Knipfer argued that the Daubert evidentiary standard applied to the State's expert testimony in his Chapter 980 discharge petition trial such that the State's expert would be precluded from testifying. He also argued that his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process would be violated if the Daubert standard did not apply to exclude that expert testimony. ¶17 The State argued that the Daubert evidentiary standard did not apply to expert testimony in Knipfer's Chapter 980 discharge petition trial because, like Alger's discharge petition, Knipfer's discharge petition did not commence a new action or special proceeding, and Knipfer's rights to equal protection and due process were not thereby violated. ¶18 On September 14, 2012, the circuit court held a bench trial on Knipfer's Chapter 980 discharge petition. The court held that the Daubert evidentiary standard did not apply to the State's expert testimony in the discharge petition trial because Knipfer's discharge petition was essentially a motion within the Chapter 980 commitment action, not a separate action or proceeding. The court also held that the failure to apply the Daubert standard to the expert testimony in the discharge petition trial did not violate Knipfer's equal protection or due process rights. On September 20, 2012, the court held that Knipfer still met the criteria for Chapter 980 commitment and entered an order denying Knipfer's discharge petition. 9 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 ¶19 On December 23, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's order denying Knipfer's Chapter 980 discharge petition. ¶20 On January 27, 2014, Knipfer petitioned this court for review, which we granted on May 23, 2014.