Court Opinion

ID: 9573461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:55:33.716277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:58.444055
License: Public Domain

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.
¶ 43. {concurring). Charles W. Mark (Mark) made four statements that are examined in this appeal. The majority opinion remands two of the statements to the circuit court to determine whether they were compelled. Ma*29jority op., ¶¶ 2, 33. I write because I conclude that there is no reason to remand the statement Mark wrote on his parole report form because that statement cannot be used against him in a criminal proceeding and therefore it is not incriminating. Accordingly, I would remand to the circuit court only Mark's oral statement to his parole agent to determine whether it was compelled, and I join the majority opinion in all aspects not inconsistent with this concurrence.
¶ 44. The parole report form on which Mark reported his efforts to gain entry to a neighboring woman's bathroom contains the following pre-printed representation by the State: "I have been advised that... none of this information can be used against me in criminal proceedings." The majority opinion does not give this statement proper effect. See majority op., ¶ 33 n.12. In my view, the State's representation is dispositive of whether Mark's written statement is incriminating within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
¶ 45. The State may require a parolee to truthfully report his conduct as a condition of probation, but not without a grant of immunity that limits its use. State v. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225, 235, 252 N.W.2d 664 (1977). As we explained in Evans where testimony from a probationer was sought, "The state may, however, compel a person's testimony if he is protected by a grant of immunity that renders the compelled testimony inadmissible against the witness in a criminal prosecution." Id. In my view, the representation by the State that Mark's statements on the parole report form will not be used in any subsequent criminal prosecution afforded Mark limited immunity as a condition to Mark's accurate reporting of his activities while on *30parole. As we explained in Evans, statements by a probationer or parolee may be given a type of immunity from prosecution:
Because the defendant here was not made aware that any statements he made could not be used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding arising out of the same fact situation ... this case must be returned to the Department for the purpose of conducting a revocation hearing if the Department so desires. At that time the defendant may be properly advised with respect to the limited use immunity herein declared.
Id. at 236. The State did what we suggested in Evans by the representation it made to Mark on the parole report form: it granted limited use immunity for his statement. In so doing, the State removed the possibility of Mark's statement being used in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
¶ 46. Additionally, in order for testimony to be incriminating under the terms of the Fifth Amendment, it must be possible to use either the statement, or information obtained as a result of the statement, in a subsequent criminal prosecution of the person making the statement. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 178-79 (2004). As the United States Supreme Court has explained:
The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating... and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.
Id. (citations omitted). The statement Mark made to his parole agent cannot be incriminating because he was required to truthfully report his activities on the parole report form and the State represented to Mark that his *31statement would not be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
¶ 47. Therefore, while I agree with the majority opinion's conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) grants a potential ch. 980 committee the same rights at trial that a criminal defendant has at a criminal trial, majority op., ¶ 2, and that State v. Zanelli, 223 Wis. 2d 545, 589 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App. 1998) (Zanelli II) requires the exclusion of evidence in a ch. 980 trial only if the evidence is testimonial, incriminating and compelled, majority op., ¶ 2,1 disagree-with the conclusion of the majority opinion that Mark's written statement is incriminating. See majority op., ¶ 33.
¶ 48. If Mark's statement is to be excluded from his ch. 980 trial, according to the standard set out in Zanelli II and adopted by the majority opinion, the statement must be incriminating, as well as testimonial and compelled. Use of a statement in a ch. 980 trial does not make the statement incriminating, as the court of appeals explained:
The fact that such statements can be used in a ch. 980, Stats., case does not mean that the statements could incriminate him in a pending or subsequent criminal prosecution as ch. 980 is a civil commitment proceeding, not a criminal proceeding.
Zanelli II, 223 Wis. 2d at 568. Furthermore, the immunity granted to Mark on the parole report form prevents use of the statement in a criminal prosecution. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d at 235. Therefore, remanding Mark's written statement for further circuit court determination is inconsistent with the aforementioned conclusions of Zanelli II and the majority opinion's adoption of those criteria for the exclusion of evidence at a ch. 980 *32trial. Accordingly, because I would remand to the circuit court only Mark's oral statement to his parole agent, I respectfully concur.
¶ 49. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this concurrence.