Opinion ID: 1974341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mandatory Or Directory

Text: [5, 6] ¶ 15. We agree with the court of appeals that the time limits for periodic reexamination contained in Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1) are mandatory rather than directory. [6] See Marberry, 254 Wis. 2d 690, ¶ 27. Whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory is a question of legislative intent. R.R.E., 162 Wis. 2d at 707. Although the use of the word `shall' in a statute suggests that the provision is mandatory, this court has often held that statutory time limits are directory despite the use of the word `shall.' Id. Thus, the determination of whether `shall' is mandatory or directory is not governed by a per se rule. Id. ¶ 16. Although we have stated that there is no per se rule, we have also held that [t]he general rule in interpreting statutory language is that the word `shall' is presumed mandatory. Further support is given to a mandatory interpretation of `shall' when the legislature uses the words `shall' and `may' in a particular statutory section, indicating the legislature was aware of the distinct meanings of the words. In re Commitment of Sprosty, 227 Wis. 2d 316, 324, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The legislature has used both the word shall and the word may in Wis. Stat. § 980.07. [7] Therefore, we `can infer that the legislature was aware of the different denotations and intended the words to have their precise meanings.' Id. at 325 (quoting Karow v. Milwaukee County Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 82 Wis. 2d 565, 571, 263 N.W.2d 214 (1978)). ¶ 17. In addition to the foregoing general rules, we consider the following factors in determining whether a statutory time limit is mandatory or directory: the existence of penalties for failure to comply with the limitation, the statute's nature, the legislative objective for the statute, and the potential consequences to the parties, such as injuries or wrongs. State v. Thomas, 2000 WI App 162, ¶ 9, 238 Wis. 2d 216, 222, 617 N.W.2d 230; see also R.R.E., 162, Wis. 2d at 708. [7] ¶ 18. The statute does not provide a penalty for failure to comply with the time limits for periodic reexamination. While [t]he legislature's failure to state the consequences of noncompliance with the established time limit lends support for construing the statute as directory, the absence of a penalty for noncompliance is only one factor to be considered in the analysis of whether the legislature intended the provision to be mandatory or directory. Karow, 82 Wis.2d at 571-72. ¶ 19. As we have noted, Chapter 980 is a civil commitment statute with dual objectives: protection of the public and treatment of persons with dangerous mental disorders. Untimely periodic reexamination frustrates the treatment objective and may keep persons who are no longer a danger to the public in institutionalized care longer than necessary. ¶ 20. In this regard, the failure to comply with the time limits for periodic reexamination has substantial consequences for the committed person. The initial and periodic reexaminations determine the committed person's appropriateness for continued institutional care, supervised release, or discharge. As the court of appeals observed, the committed person's liberty hinges upon this initial reexamination. Marberry, 254 Wis. 2d 690, ¶ 27. ¶ 21. The weight of these considerations leads us to conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the time limits for periodic reexamination in Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1) are mandatory. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily require release and discharge from commitment as a remedy for noncompliance with the statutory mandate.