Court Opinion

ID: 9687559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:35:55.753928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:28.703047
License: Public Domain

MYSE, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority opinion but feel compelled to write separately to emphasize the desirability of preparing a pattern jury instruction defining "substantially probable" in sexual predator cases. See § 980.01(7), STATS.
While there has long been debate as to the advisability of attempting to define the various burdens of proof to be applied by a jury in any particular case, Wisconsin has clearly cast its lot with those states concluding that a definition assists the jury in discharging its most important responsibilities. Accordingly, we define "reasonable doubt," WlS J I — CRIMINAL 10, and "greater weight of the credible evidence," WlS J I — Criminal 200, to assist the jury in understanding the weight of evidence necessary to meet the burden placed upon the party with the obligation to persuade the jury. While I agree with the majority decision that there is no constitutional right to have the term "substantially probable" defined, I fear that the lay understanding of this language may lead to jury confusion and anomalous results.
In particular, it is possible that this language could be misunderstood to permit the State to demonstrate by less than a preponderance of evidence the likelihood a defendant will commit criminal acts upon release. If a jury viewed the dictionary definition of *381probable as "likely though not certain to occur," it could construe this to encompass a degree of likelihood of less than 50%. It is unclear that the modifier "substantially" would protect the jury from misunderstanding the appropriate burden of proof. "Substantially" is a relative term with a wide and varied meaning to different people.
In the interest of fairness and to assist the jury in a proper understanding as to the burden of proof to be applied in sexual predator cases, a definition of substantially probable is highly desirable. It avoids the application of the wrong burden of proof and assists the jury in understanding the relative relationships that exist between the various burdens placed upon the party with the burden of persuasion. A standard jury instruction would be of great benefit to the judges of this state and assure consistency in its application of the appropriate standard in all sexual predator cases.