971.17(7)(d)
(d) Upon a showing by the proponent of good cause under
s. 807.13 (2) (c), testimony may be received into the record of a hearing under this section by telephone or live audio-visual means.
971.17(8)
(8) Applicability. This section governs the commitment, release and discharge of persons adjudicated not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect for offenses committed on or after January 1, 1991. The commitment, release and discharge of persons adjudicated not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect for offenses committed prior to January 1, 1991, shall be governed by s.
971.17, 1987 stats., as affected by
1989 Wisconsin Act 31.
971.17 History
History: 1975 c. 430;
1977 c. 353;
1977 c. 428 s.
115;
1983 a. 359; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 W (2d) xiii (1987);
1987 a. 394;
1989 a. 31,
142,
334,
359; Sup. Ct. Order, 158 W (2d) xvii (1990);
1991 a. 39,
189,
269;
1993 a. 16,
98,
227;
1995 a. 27 s.
9126 (19);
1995 a. 417,
425,
440,
448; s. 13.93 (2) (c).
Effective date note
Judicial Council Note, 1990: Sub. (7) (d) [created] conforms the standard for admission of testimony by telephone or live audio-visual means at hearings under this section to that governing other evidentiary criminal proceedings. [Re Order eff. 1-1-91]
971.17 Annotation
There is no right to jury trial in recommitment proceedings under sub. (3), due process clause or equal protection clause. State v. M.S. 159 W (2d) 206, 464 NW (2d) 41 (Ct. App. 1990).
971.17 Annotation
DHSS not the county is responsible for funding the conditions for a person conditionally released under this section. Rolo v. Goers, 174 W (2d) 709, 497 NW (2d) 724 (Ct. App. 1993).
971.17 Annotation
It is not a denial of due process for an insanity acquitee to be confined to a state health facility for so long as he or she is considered dangerous, although sane, provided that the commitment does not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment which could have been imposed for the criminal offense charged and where the state bears the burden of proof that the commitment should continue because the individual is a danger to himself, herself or others. State v. Randall, 192 W (2d) 800, 532 NW (2d) 94 (1995).
971.18
971.18
Inadmissibility of statements for purposes of examination. A statement made by a person subjected to psychiatric examination or treatment pursuant to this chapter for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence against the person in any criminal proceeding on any issue other than that of the person's mental condition.
971.18 History
History: 1993 a. 486.
971.19(1)(1) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except as otherwise provided.
971.19(2)
(2) Where 2 or more acts are requisite to the commission of any offense, the trial may be in any county in which any of such acts occurred.
971.19(3)
(3) Where an offense is committed on or within one-fourth of a mile of the boundary of 2 or more counties, the defendant may be tried in any of such counties.
971.19(4)
(4) If a crime is committed in, on or against any vehicle passing through or within this state, and it cannot readily be determined in which county the crime was committed, the defendant may be tried in any county through which such vehicle has passed or in the county where the defendant's travel commenced or terminated.
971.19(5)
(5) If the act causing death is in one county and the death ensues in another, the defendant may be tried in either county. If neither location can be determined, the defendant may be tried in the county where the body is found.
971.19(6)
(6) If an offense is commenced outside the state and is consummated within the state, the defendant may be tried in the county where the offense was consummated.
971.19(7)
(7) If a crime is committed on boundary waters at a place where 2 or more counties have common jurisdiction under
s. 2.03 or
2.04 or under any other law, the prosecution may be in either county. The county whose process against the offender is first served shall be conclusively presumed to be the county in which the crime was committed.
971.19(8)
(8) In an action for a violation of
s. 948.31, the defendant may be tried in the county where the crime was committed or the county of lawful residence of the child.
971.19(9)
(9) In an action under
s. 301.45 (6), the defendant may be tried in the defendant's county of residence at the time that the complaint is filed or, if the defendant does not have a county of residence in this state at the time that the complaint is filed, any county in which he or she has resided while subject to
s. 301.45.
Effective date note
NOTE: Sub. (9) is shown as amended eff. 6-1-97 by
1995 Wis. Act 440. Prior to 6-1-97 it reads:
Effective date text
(9) In an action under s. 175.45 (6), the defendant may be tried in the defendant's county of residence at the time that the complaint is filed or, if the defendant does not have a county of residence in this state at the time that the complaint is filed, any county in which he or she has resided while subject to s. 175.45.
971.19 Annotation
Where failure to file registration form and act of soliciting contributions were elements of the offense, venue was proper in either of the 2 counties under (2). Blenski v. State, 73 W (2d) 685, 245 NW (2d) 906.
971.20
971.20
Substitution of judge. 971.20(1)
(1)
Definition. In this section, "action" means all proceedings before a court from the filing of a complaint to final disposition at the trial level.
971.20(2)
(2) One substitution. In any criminal action, the defendant has a right to only one substitution of a judge, except under
sub. (7). The right of substitution shall be exercised as provided in this section.
971.20(3)
(3) Substitution of judge assigned to preliminary examination. 971.20(3)(a)(a) In this subsection, "judge" includes a court commissioner who is assigned to conduct the preliminary examination.
971.20(3)(b)
(b) A written request for the substitution of a different judge for the judge assigned to preside at the preliminary examination may be filed with the clerk, or with the court at the initial appearance. If filed with the clerk, the request must be filed at least 5 days before the preliminary examination unless the court otherwise permits. Substitution of a judge assigned to a preliminary examination under this subsection exhausts the right to substitution for the duration of the action, except under
sub. (7).
971.20(4)
(4) Substitution of trial judge originally assigned. A written request for the substitution of a different judge for the judge originally assigned to the trial of the action may be filed with the clerk before making any motions to the trial court and before arraignment.
971.20(5)
(5) Substitution of trial judge subsequently assigned. If a new judge is assigned to the trial of an action and the defendant has not exercised the right to substitute an assigned judge, a written request for the substitution of the new judge may be filed with the clerk within 15 days of the clerk's giving actual notice or sending notice of the assignment to the defendant or the defendant's attorney. If the notification occurs within 20 days of the date set for trial, the request shall be filed within 48 hours of the clerk's giving actual notice or sending notice of the assignment. If the notification occurs within 48 hours of the trial or if there has been no notification, the defendant may make an oral or written request for substitution prior to the commencement of the proceedings.
971.20(6)
(6) Substitution of judge in multiple defendant actions. In actions involving more than one defendant, the request for substitution shall be made jointly by all defendants. If severance has been granted and the right to substitute has not been exercised prior to the granting of severance, the defendant or defendants in each action may request a substitution under this section.
971.20(7)
(7) Substitution of judge following appeal. If an appellate court orders a new trial or sentencing proceeding, a request under this section may be filed within 20 days after the filing of the remittitur by the appellate court, whether or not a request for substitution was made prior to the time the appeal was taken.
971.20(8)
(8) Procedures for clerk. Upon receiving a request for substitution, the clerk shall immediately contact the judge whose substitution has been requested for a determination of whether the request was made timely and in proper form. If no determination is made within 7 days, the clerk shall refer the matter to the chief judge for the determination and reassignment of the action as necessary. If the request is determined to be proper, the clerk shall request the assignment of another judge under
s. 751.03.
971.20(9)
(9) Judge's authority to act. Upon the filing of a request for substitution in proper form and within the proper time, the judge whose substitution has been requested has no authority to act further in the action except to conduct the initial appearance, accept pleas and set bail.
971.20(10)
(10) Form of request. A request for substitution of a judge may be made in the following form:
STATE OF WISCONSIN
CIRCUIT COURT
.... County
State of Wisconsin
vs.
....(Defendant)
Pursuant to
s. 971.20 the defendant (or defendants) request (s) a substitution for the Hon. .... as judge in the above entitled action.
Dated ...., 19...
....(Signature of defendant or defendant's attorney)
971.20(11)
(11) Return of action to substituted judge. Upon the filing of an agreement signed by the defendant or defendant's attorney and by the prosecuting attorney, the substituted judge and the substituting judge, the criminal action and all pertinent records shall be transferred back to the substituted judge.
971.20 History
History: 1981 c. 137;
1987 a. 27.
971.20 Note
NOTE: See the 1979-80 Statutes for notes and annotations relating to 971.20 prior to its repeal and recreation by ch. 137, laws of 1981.
971.20 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1981: Section 971.20 has been revised to clarify its objective of allowing defendants in criminal trials one substitution of the assigned judge upon making a timely request. The statute is not to be used for delay nor for "judge shopping," but is to ensure a fair and impartial trial for the defendants. The statute does not govern removal for cause of the assigned judge through an affidavit of prejudice.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (2) clarifies that the defendant has a right to only one substitution of judge in a criminal action, unless an appellate court orders a new trial. Prior sub. (2) so provided, but the effect of this provision was unclear in light of the introductory phrase of prior sub. (3).
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (3) allows the defendant's right of substitution to be used against the judge assigned to the preliminary examination and specifies the timing of these requests.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (4) allows the defendant's right of substitution to be used against the judge originally assigned to preside at trial, specifying the timing of these requests.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (5) allows the defendant's right of substitution to be used against a judge assigned to preside at trial in place of the judge originally assigned, specifying the timing of these requests.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (6) clarifies that all defendants in a single action must join in a substitution request.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (7) allows a substitution request to be made upon appellate remand for a new trial, irrespective of whether a substitution of judge was requested prior to the appeal. It is the only exception to the rule of one substitution per action. The time limit for the request is tied to filing of the remittitur, in accordance with Rohl v. State,
97 Wis. 2d 514 (1980). [LRB NOTE: Senate Amendment 1 revised this subsection to also allow the substitution request to be made upon appellate remand for new sentencing proceedings.]
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (8) provides for the determination of the timeliness and propriety of the substitution request to be made by the chief judge if the trial judge fails to do so within 7 days.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (9) is prior sub. (2), amended to allow the judge whose substitution has been requested to accept any plea. The prior statute allowed the judge to accept only pleas of not guilty. This revision promotes judicial economy by allowing the judge whose substitution has been requested to accept a guilty or no contest plea tendered by the defendant before the action is reassigned. Defendants preferring to have guilty or no contest pleas accepted by the substituting judge may obtain that result by standing mute or pleading not guilty until after the action has been reassigned.
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (10) is prior sub. (5).
971.20 Annotation
Sub. (11) is prior sub. (6). [Bill 163-S]
971.20 Annotation
Peremptory substitution of judge under s. 971.20, 1979 stats., was not unconstitutional. State v. Holmes, 106 W (2d) 31, 315 NW (2d) 703 (1982).
971.20 Annotation
Where appellate court remands for exercise of discretion in ordering restitution, it has not remanded for a sentencing proceeding, and defendant is not entitled to substitution under (7). State v. Foley, 153 W (2d) 748, 451 NW (2d) 796 (Ct. App. 1989).
971.20 Annotation
Where initial appearance is conducted before judge assigned to hear matter, strict application of filing deadline is appropriate; where intake system does not provide adequate notice of assigned judge prior to arraignment, deadlines are relaxed to allow defendant to intelligently exercise right. Tinti v. Waukesha County Circuit Ct. 159 W (2d) 783, 464 NW (2d) 853 (Ct. App. 1990).
971.20 Annotation
Once a judge is substituted for, the judge may only act in the case as specified in sub. (9); understandable inadvertent appearance before the substituted judge is not a waiver of the substitution. State v. Austin, 171 W (2d) 251, 490 NW (2d) 780 (Ct. App. 1992).
971.20 Annotation
Where a case is assigned to a newly appointed judge prior to the appointee's taking the judicial oath, the time limit to request a substitution commences on the date the appointee becomes a judge. Strong v. Dane County Circuit Court, 184 W (2d) 223, 416 NW (2d) 451 (Ct. App. 1994).
971.20 Annotation
There is no "trial court" under sub. (4) until after a bindover. A motion to reduce bail prior to the bindover was not a motion to the trial court which prevented filing a request for substitution. Mace v. Green Lake Co. Circuit Court, 193 W (2d) 208, 532 NW (2d) 720 (1995).
971.22
971.22
Change of place of trial. 971.22(1)
(1) The defendant may move for a change of the place of trial on the ground that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county. The motion shall be made at arraignment, but it may be made thereafter for cause.
971.22(2)
(2) The motion shall be in writing and supported by affidavit which shall state evidentiary facts showing the nature of the prejudice alleged. The district attorney may file counter affidavits.
971.22(3)
(3) If the court determines that there exists in the county where the action is pending such prejudice that a fair trial cannot be had, it shall order that the trial be held in any county where an impartial trial can be had. Only one change may be granted under this subsection. The judge who orders the change in the place of trial shall preside at the trial. Preliminary matters prior to trial may be conducted in either county at the discretion of the court. The judge shall determine where the defendant, if he or she is in custody, shall be held and where the record shall be kept. If the criteria under
s. 971.225 (1) (a) to
(c) exist, the court may proceed under
s. 971.225 (2).
971.22 History
History: 1981 c. 115.
971.22 Annotation
Relevant factors as to necessity of a change of venue discussed. State v. Hebard, 50 W (2d) 408, 184 NW (2d) 156; Tucker v. State, 56 W (2d) 728, 202 NW (2d) 897.
971.22 Annotation
Rules for determining whether community prejudice exists discussed. Thomas v. State, 53 W (2d) 483, 192 NW (2d) 864.
971.22 Annotation
While actual prejudice need not be shown, there must be a showing of a reasonable probability of prejudice inherent in the situation. Gibson v. State, 55 W (2d) 110, 197 NW (2d) 813.
971.22 Annotation
The timing, specificity, inflammatory nature and degree of permeation of publicity is extremely important in determining the likelihood of prejudice in the community. State ex rel. Hussong v. Froelich, 62 W (2d) 577, 215 NW (2d) 390.
971.22 Annotation
Where news stories concerning the crime were accurate, informational articles of a nature which would not cause prejudice and where 4 months elapsed between publication of the news stories and trial, it tended to indicate little or no prejudice against defendant. Jones v. State, 66 W (2d) 105, 223 NW (2d) 889.
971.22 Annotation
There was no abuse of discretion in this prosecution for 1st-degree murder in not changing the venue where the transcript of the hearing on the issuance of arrest warrant, the preliminary examination, and other hearings were closed to public and press; the police and prosecutor refused to divulge any facts to public and press; and press reports were generally free from the details of incriminating evidence, straightforward and not incendiary. State v. Dean, 67 W (2d) 513, 227 NW (2d) 712.
971.22 Annotation
Only defendant may waive right to venue where the crime was committed. State v. Mendoza, 80 W (2d) 122, 258 NW (2d) 260.
971.225
971.225
Jury from another county. 971.225(1)
(1) In lieu of changing the place of trial under
s. 971.22 (3), the court may require the selection of a jury under
sub. (2) if:
971.225(1)(a)
(a) The court has decided to sequester the jurors after the commencement of the trial, as provided in
s. 972.12;
971.225(1)(c)
(c) The estimated costs to the county appear to be less using the procedure under this section than using the procedure for holding the trial in another county.
971.225(2)
(2) If the court decides to proceed under this section it shall follow the procedure under
s. 971.22 until the jury is chosen in the 2nd county. At that time, the proceedings shall return to the original county using the jurors selected in the 2nd county. The original county shall reimburse the 2nd county for all applicable costs under
s. 814.22.
971.225 History
History: 1981 c. 115;
1991 a. 39.
971.23
971.23
Discovery and inspection. 971.23(1)
(1)
What a district attorney must disclose to a defendant. Upon demand, the district attorney shall, within a reasonable time before trial, disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney and permit the defendant or his or her attorney to inspect and copy or photograph all of the following materials and information, if it is within the possession, custody or control of the state:
971.23(1)(a)
(a) Any written or recorded statement concerning the alleged crime made by the defendant, including the testimony of the defendant in a secret proceeding under
s. 968.26 or before a grand jury, and the names of witnesses to the defendant's written statements.
971.23(1)(b)
(b) A written summary of all oral statements of the defendant which the district attorney plans to use in the course of the trial and the names of witnesses to the defendant's oral statements.
971.23(1)(bm)
(bm) Evidence obtained in the manner described under
s. 968.31 (2) (b), if the district attorney intends to use the evidence at trial.
