Automatic Stay of Involuntary Medication Orders and Tolling of Statutory Limitations for Competency Restoration Does Not Apply in the Pretrial Context
In State v. Green 973 N.W.2d 770 (Wis. 2022), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the automatic stay of involuntary medication orders pending appeal does not apply to pretrial proceedings and the statutory limitation for achieving a defendant's competency is also not subject to tolling in the same context.
Facts of the Case
In December 2019, Joseph Green fatally shot his sister and was charged with first degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon. The Dane County Circuit Court ordered a competency to stand trial evaluation at the defense counsel’s request. The court-appointed psychiatrist testified that Mr. Green was not competent but could be restored to competency within a 12-month timeframe if treated with antipsychotic medications. The circuit court subsequently found Mr. Green incompetent to proceed with his legal charges. He was committed to Mendota Mental Health Services for an unspecified term not to exceed 12 months. The order of commitment also included involuntary medications.
In February 2020, Mr. Green appealed both decisions, the 12-month commitment term and the involuntary medication order. In response, the Dane County Circuit Court granted him an automatic stay of the involuntary medication order pending appeal pursuant to the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in State v. Scott, 914 N.W.2d 141 (Wis. 2018). In Scott, a postconviction defendant was granted an automatic stay of an involuntary medication order pending appeal.
The state responded to Mr. Green’s appeal in two ways: by filing motions to lift the automatic stay of the involuntary medication order, and to toll the statutory period to bring Mr. Green to competency to stand trial. During the evidentiary hearing in May 2020, the circuit court decided to lift the automatic stay of the order for involuntary medication and grant the state’s motion to toll the statutory period to bring Mr. Green to competency to stand trial.
Mr. Green appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. He argued that the state did not present sufficient evidence to support the involuntary medication order. The court agreed and determined that the state failed to meet both the second Sell factor (referring to Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)), that the involuntary medication order was substantially likely to render him competent to stand trial, and the fourth Sell factor, that the state did not present an individual treatment plan on the basis of a medically informed record, by clear and convincing evidence.
Mr. Green also argued that the circuit court erred in lifting the automatic stay of the involuntary medication order. The court, referencing prior Wisconsin Supreme Court case law from Scott, agreed. Mr. Green contended that the circuit court did not have authority to toll the statutory period to bring him to competency. The court, referencing Wis. Stat. § 971.14(5)(a) (2021), agreed and determined that the circuit court erred in tolling the statutory period to bring Mr. Green to competency.
Finally, Mr. Green argued that the circuit court did not have the authority to hear the state's motion to lift the automatic stay of the involuntary medication order. The court disagreed and determined that the circuit court indeed had the authority to hear the state's motion.
As a result of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decisions, the orders for involuntary medication and the automatic stay were reversed and Mr. Green was to be discharged from the 12-month commitment, as the statutory term period had expired. In response, the state appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Ruling and Reasoning
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision and held that the postconviction automatic stay of involuntary-medication orders pending appeal does not apply to pretrial proceedings. Although Mr. Green argued that two of the Sell factors were not met, the court reasoned that the second Sell factor, involuntary medication will significantly further the governmental interest, and the fourth Sell factor, involuntary medication is medically appropriate, were met by clear and convincing evidence. The court also affirmed that the state has a substantial pretrial interest in bringing a defendant to competency for trial.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals relied on prior Wisconsin Supreme Court case law, from Scott, where a postconviction defendant was granted an automatic stay of an involuntary medication order pending appeal. But, Mr. Green was a pretrial defendant, so the Wisconsin Supreme Court thus narrowed their interpretation of precedent in ruling on Scott. The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that providing timely justice to victims outweighs upholding a defendant's liberty interest in refusing involuntary medications. The court clarified that this urgency is not similarly existent in the postconviction process as it is during the pretrial stage of criminal proceedings.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court also affirmed the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision that the 12-month statutory limitation for achieving a defendant’s competency is not subject to tolling in the pretrial context. The court based its decision on §971.14(5)(a) of the state code, which declares that if a defendant is not competent but would likely become competent within a statutory timeframe, “it shall suspend the proceedings and commit the defendant to the custody of the department for treatment for a period not to exceed 12 months.” The court stated that the legislature has decided that 12 months was the maximum time during which to “determine whether there is a substantial probability that a defendant will attain competency in the foreseeable future” (Green, p 783). The court concluded that the plain meaning of the 12-month treatment limit does not permit tolling of its limit on confinement for pretrial treatment to achieve competency.
Discussion
The outcomes in Green set new legal precedent in Wisconsin for pretrial proceedings regarding involuntary medication orders and tolling of statutory limitations for restoration of competency to stand trial.
Tolling is a legal principle defined as a pause of the running of a period of time set forth by a statute of limitations. In Green, the state argued that the 12-month commitment term should be tolled, that is, paused, throughout the appeals process which was granted by the circuit court. But, both the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court decision. Generally, statutory tolling is permitted, but only in certain circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court relied on interpretation of the Wis. Stat. §971.14(5)(a) in its decision. That statute states that the pretrial proceedings will be suspended, and the defendant will be committed to the custody of the mental health department for treatment for a period not to exceed 12 months if the defendant is not competent but would likely become competent within the statutory timeframe. The court made a clear distinction that although the defendant is in custody for purposes of treatment, the total amount of time that the defendant has spent in custody must not exceed 12 months, even if the defendant has spent a portion of that statutory timeframe in an appeals process and not receiving treatment for restoration of competency to stand trial. This has potential implications for treatment providers in considering the relevant timeframe for which the person can be subject to treatment.
In Sell, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of involuntary antipsychotic medication orders to mentally ill criminal defendants to restore their competency to stand trial by local jurisdictions. The Court established four specific criteria that must be met by clear and convincing evidence to medicate a pretrial defendant over objection to restore competency. These criteria, known as the Sell factors, are: the government has an important interest in proceeding to trial; involuntary medication will significantly further the governmental interest; involuntary medication is necessary to further the governmental interest; and involuntary medication is medically appropriate.
In Green, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the Sell factors and found that they were met by clear and convincing evidence. The court emphasized that at the pretrial point in criminal proceedings, the government has an important interest in proceeding to trial, which is not similarly existent in the postconviction process. The court weighed the urgency of the pretrial process versus Mr. Green’s constitutionally protected liberty interest of avoiding unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs. The court determined that the proposed involuntary medications were medically appropriate and were necessary to further the government’s interest. This is another example of the application of Sell, similar to what other states have required to meet the criteria, during the pretrial process as it pertains to restoration of competency and administration of involuntary medications.
- © 2023 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law