Court Opinion

ID: 9723355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:12:25.773841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:47.486365
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed March 1, 1977.
Per Curiam
{on motion for rehearing). On Page 498 of our original opinion, it is stated that:
“This commitment to the department practically amounts to a sentence of the maximum term for the crime committed by the defendant.”
*502aThis language is withdrawn.
On Page 497 it is stated that:
“In State v. Goulette, supra, this court held that the process which was due in parole determination was a hearing with minimal due process or fair play standards and the keeping of some form of comprehensible and adequate record for the purposes of review. Id. at 216, 222 N.W. 2d at 627.
“We believe that persons committed under ch. 975 are entitled to hearings which afford the same minimal requirements of due process. These minimal requirements include: (1) written notice of the hearing; (2) disclosure of the evidentiary material which will be considered by the hearing body; (3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, in the absence of good cause for not allowing confrontation; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the fact-finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for refusing parole or discharge. Morrissey v. Brewer, supra at 489.”
This language is withdrawn and in its place the following is substituted:
In State v. Goulette, supra, this court noted that in parole grant determinations minimal due process requirements or fair play standards should be provided and that some form of comprehensive and adequate record should be kept and provided for purposes of review. Id. at 216, 222 N.W. 2d 627.
We believe that persons committed under ch. 975 are also entitled to hearings which afford minimal due process. These minimal requirements for a reexamination of a sex crimes commitment between the time of initial commitment and the expiration of the maximum term include: (1) written notice of the hearing; (2) disclosure of the evidentiary material which will be considered by the hearing body; (3) opportunity to be heard in *502bperson and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, in the absence of good cause for not allowing confrontation; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for refusing discharge. See Morrissey v. Brewer, supra at 489.
Motion for rehearing denied without costs.