Opinion ID: 2771203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State v. Alger

Text: ¶5 It is undisputed that Alger was deemed to be a sexually violent person and was involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 on May 10, 2005. He has been under Chapter 980 commitment ever since. ¶6 In the six years between his Chapter 980 commitment and Wisconsin's adoption of the Daubert evidentiary standard, Alger filed one petition for discharge and much other correspondence with the committing court. The Daubert standard was not a Wisconsin evidentiary standard during any prior proceeding in Alger's Chapter 980 commitment. ¶7 On April 21, 2011, about two months after Wisconsin adopted the Daubert evidentiary standard, Alger filed a petition for discharge from his Chapter 980 commitment. The petition relied on Alger's expert's opinion that Alger was no longer a sexually violent person. The State's expert opined that Alger was still a sexually violent person and should not be discharged from Chapter 980 commitment. ¶8 On July 29, 2011, Alger filed a motion in limine to exclude the State's expert testimony at the discharge petition 6 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 trial on the ground that the testimony did not meet the newly adopted Daubert evidentiary standard. The State responded and argued that the Daubert standard did not apply because Alger's underlying commitment began before the Daubert standard was first applicable, and that the discharge petition was not a new action or special proceeding. On November 18, 2011, Alger filed a supplemental memorandum in support of his motion in limine in which he also argued that his constitutional right to equal protection would be violated if the Daubert standard did not apply to the State's expert testimony in his Chapter 980 discharge petition trial. On November 23, 2011, Alger filed another Chapter 980 discharge petition and that petition was merged with his previously filed discharge petition. ¶9 On January 30, 2012, the circuit court denied Alger's motion in limine. The court concluded that the Daubert evidentiary standard did not apply to Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition. The court reasoned that Alger's discharge petition, although filed after the Daubert standard was first applicable, was part of the underlying Chapter 980 commitment proceeding that began when the State filed [a] petition for a commitment trial under [Wis. Stat. §] 980.02 several years before the Daubert standard was even adopted. The court also concluded that the failure to apply the Daubert standard to Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition did not violate equal protection. ¶10 On August 20, 2012, Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition was tried before a six-person jury. Two expert 7 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 witnesses testified on behalf of Alger and two experts testified on behalf of the State. The jury found that Alger still met the criteria for Chapter 980 commitment. On August 22, 2012, the court entered an order denying Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition. ¶11 On November 19, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's order denying Alger's Chapter 980 discharge petition. ¶12 On December 18, 2013, Alger petitioned this court for review, which we granted on May 23, 2014.