State v. M. M. K.

1

State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. M. M. K., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2024AP591-CR, 2024AP592-CR, 2024AP593-CR, 2024AP594-CR

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV

October 31, 2024

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Portage County Cir. Ct. Nos. 2023CM243, 2023CM244, 2023CM355, 2023CM360 LOUIS J. MOLEPSKE, JR., Judge. Affirmed.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Portage County MICHAEL D. ZELL, Judge. Reversed.

GRAHAM, J. ^[1]

¶1 M.M.K., who was charged with five misdemeanor counts of violating a harassment injunction, was determined to be incompetent to proceed to trial. In each of M.M.K.'s criminal cases, the circuit court entered an order committing her to the state department of health services for treatment to competency, and a separate order authorizing the involuntary administration of medication. M.M.K. challenges both sets of orders on appeal.^[2] I affirm the orders that found M.M.K. incompetent and committed her for treatment, and I reverse the involuntary medication orders.^[3]

BACKGROUND

¶2 The State filed four criminal complaints against M.M.K., all alleging that she violated a harassment injunction over a several-month period in 2023. See WIS. STAT. § 813.125(4). The injunction prohibited M.M.K. from contacting her then-husband or posting about him or their child on social media. The complaints collectively alleged that M.M.K. violated the injunction by sending emails to her husband, which claimed he was abusive, and by making social media posts that mentioned her husband, some of which claimed that he was mentally ill, unstable, and withholding their child from M.M.K. ¶3 During the pretrial proceedings, questions were raised about M.M.K.'s competency. Under WIS. STAT. § 971.13(1), "[n]o person who lacks substantial mental capacity to understand the proceedings or assist in his or her own defense may be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures." "[W]henever there is a reason to doubt a defendant's competency to proceed," a circuit court "shall" order competency proceedings after finding probable cause that the defendant committed the charged offense. WIS. STAT. § 971.14(lr)(a), (c). If the court determines that a defendant is incompetent but may be restored to competency through treatment, the court "shall suspend the [criminal] proceedings and commit the defendant to the custody of the department [of health services] for treatment," and the department has a limited window of time to attempt to restore the defendant's competency. §971.14(5)(a)l.^[4]

¶4 Separately, and subject to legal standards that are discussed at length below, the department may file a motion asking the court to enter an order that allows the department to involuntarily administer medication to restore the defendant to competency. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003); WIS. STAT. §971.14(5)(am).

¶5 Here, the circuit court ordered a competency examination, and the examining evaluator indicated that M.M.K. may have a delusional disorder.

However, the evaluate was unable to offer an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty about M.M.K.'s capacity to understand court proceedings or her ability to assist in her defense. The court ordered an inpatient examination, which took place at Mendota Mental Health Institute ("Mendota"). See WIS. STAT. § 971.14(2). Danielle Calas, a licensed clinical psychologist with a doctorate in clinical psychology, examined M.M.K. and diagnosed her with "[u]nspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder." Dr. Calas opined that M.M.K. lacked the capacity to understand the criminal proceedings against her and assist in her defense, but was likely to be restored to competency within the statutory period. Dr. Calas recommended inpatient treatment to restore M.M.K. to competency, and further recommended that the department pursue an order for involuntary administration of medication and treatment.

¶6 The county department of health services filed a separate motion seeking an order that would allow for the involuntary administration of medication in order to treat M.M.K. to competency. Along with the motion, the department filed a report and proposed treatment plan that had been authored by Dr. Candace Cohen, a board certified psychiatrist who is employed by Mendota.

¶7 The circuit court addressed the issues regarding competency and involuntary medication during two separate hearings, both contested. See WIS. STAT. § 971.14(4). As discussed at greater length below, during the first hearing, which I refer to as the "commitment hearing," the court determined that M.M.K. was not competent to stand trial, and it committed her to the department's custody for treatment. And then during the second hearing, which I refer to as the "involuntary medication hearing," the court authorized the involuntary administration of medication.

¶8 The commitment hearing took place on March 12, 2024, with the Honorable Louis J. Molepske presiding. Dr. Calas was the only witness, and she testified that she based her opinions on her interview and encounters with M.M.K., staff observation and documentation, and other records. Dr. Calas testified that M.M.K. "understands the legal proceedings," but that she lacked insight into what was real and what was not, and her "perception of the events that led to her charges" precluded her from having the "ability to make an independent autonomous decision or apply the facts" to her criminal cases. Dr. Calas opined that, in her opinion, M.M.K. could be restored to competency through treatment, and that the likelihood of treatment being effective would be higher if it included the administration of psychotropic medication.

¶9 The circuit court issued an order finding M.M.K. incompetent and committing her to the department's custody for treatment. It found that M.M.K. was intelligent and understood the court proceedings, but that she lacked the capacity to assist in her defense. As discussed in greater detail below, the court found that Dr. Calas's report and testimony showed "by the clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that [M.M.K.] is not competent to proceed at this time," but that M.M.K. would regain competency "within the statutory time frame."

¶10 The involuntary medication hearing took place on March 26, 2024, with the Honorable Michael D. Zell presiding. At that hearing, the parties agreed that the applicable legal standards are set forth in Sell, 539 U.S. 166. There, the United States Supreme Court emphasized that criminal defendants have "a 'significant' [and] constitutionally protected 'liberty interest' in 'avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs.'" Id. at 178 (citation omitted). The Court further determined that, before forcibly medicating an accused person to competency to stand trial, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the State has an important interest in proceeding to trial; (2) involuntary medication will significantly further the State's interest; (3) involuntary medication is necessary to further the State's interest; and (4) involuntary medication is medically appropriate. Id. at 180-81. In addition to these Sell factors, Wisconsin statutes also require the State to prove that the accused person is not competent to refuse medication. WIS. STAT. §971.14(3)(dm) and (4)(b).

¶11 During the involuntary medication hearing in M.M.K.'s case, the parties disputed whether the State met its burden on the first Sell factor. As discussed at greater length below, to satisfy that factor, the State must show an interest in "bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime," and the parties disputed whether the crimes that M.M.K. allegedly committed were sufficiently "serious" to satisfy this factor. Sell, 539 U.S. at 180. The parties also disputed whether the State met its burden to prove the remaining Sell factors.

¶12 At the end of the involuntary medication hearing, the circuit court determined that "the charges are serious in the sense that is contemplated by Sell and other cases interpreting that language." The court further determined that "the involuntary administration of medication will significantly further important government interests because it is likely to render [M.M.K.] competent to stand trial, and is substantially unlikely to have side effects that undermine the fairness of the trial by interfering with [her] ability to assist counsel." Finally, the court determined that "the involuntary administration of medication or treatment is necessary because alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results." The circuit court entered an involuntary medication order.

¶13 M.M.K. appealed the commitment order and the involuntary medication order, and we granted M.M.K. 's motion for a stay of the involuntary medication order pending disposition of this appeal.^[5]

DISCUSSION

¶14 On appeal, M.M.K. challenges the competency determination that the circuit court made at the commitment hearing,^[6] and she further challenges the involuntary medication order that the court entered following the involuntary medication hearing. I address these challenges in turn.

I

¶15 Competency is a "judicial inquiry, not a medical determination," and a court's task at a contested commitment hearing is to determine whether the evidence shows that "the defendant can understand the proceedings and assist counsel 'with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.'" State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, ¶31, 237 Wis.2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477 (citation omitted). "A competency determination...