Opinion ID: 1978898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant asserts that the evidence adduced at the hearing was insufficient to support the trial court's order confirming the order of the department. In cases such as this, the state has the burden of proof to establish to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the defendant needs additional specialized treatment. Goetsch v. State (1969), 45 Wis. 2d 285, 294, 172 N. W. 2d 688. The state met its burden in this case. Dr. Anderson, the state's only witness, testified that defendant was suffering from a sociopathic disturbance with sexual deviation and antisocial acting-out tendencies and that defendant was inclined toward rape. He concluded that it would be dangerous to release defendant at this time because of the high probability that defendant would engage in aggressive assaults against women. The doctor went so far as to predict that, if released at this time, defendant would eventually assault, and possibly injure or kill, an adult female. The expert witnesses called by the defense were not as adamant  as Dr. Anderson. One witness testified that he could not say to a reasonable medical certainty whether defendant was dangerous at this time, while the other, in a letter to the court, stated that he believed defendant to be dangerous, but to a degree which he could not determine with certainty. The trial court concluded that the evidence clearly established defendant's need for continued specialized treatment. The court's determination is supported by the evidence in the record.