Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (2026)
Examination of defendant
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
971.16(2)(2) If the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or there is reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will otherwise become an issue in the case, the court may appoint at least one physician or at least one psychologist, but not more than 3 physicians or psychologists or combination thereof, to examine the defendant and to testify at the trial. The compensation of the physicians or psychologists shall be fixed by the court and paid by the county upon the order of the court as part of the costs of the action. The receipt by any physician or psychologist summoned under this section of any other compensation than that so fixed by the court and paid by the county, or the offer or promise by any person to pay such other compensation, is unlawful and punishable as contempt of court. The fact that the physician or psychologist has been appointed by the court shall be made known to the jury and the physician or psychologist shall be subject to cross-examination by both parties.
971.16(3)(3) Not less than 10 days before trial, or at any other time that the court directs, any physician or psychologist appointed under sub. (2) shall file a report of his or her examination of the defendant with the judge, who shall cause copies to be transmitted to the district attorney and to counsel for the defendant. The contents of the report shall be confidential until the physician or psychologist has testified or at the completion of the trial. The report shall contain an opinion regarding the ability of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct or to conform the defendant’s conduct with the requirements of law at the time of the commission of the criminal offense charged and, if sufficient information is available to the physician or psychologist to reach an opinion, his or her opinion on whether the defendant needs medication or treatment and whether the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment. The defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment if, because of mental illness, developmental disability, alcoholism or drug dependence, and after the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to accepting the particular medication or treatment have been explained to the defendant, one of the following is true:
971.16(3)(a)(a) The defendant is incapable of expressing an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication or treatment and the alternatives.
971.16(3)(b)(b) The defendant is substantially incapable of applying an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to his or her mental illness, developmental disability, alcoholism or drug dependence in order to make an informed choice as to whether to accept or refuse medication or treatment.
971.16(4)(4) If the defendant wishes to be examined by a physician, psychologist or other expert of his or her own choice, the examiner shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purposes of examination. No testimony regarding the mental condition of the defendant shall be received from a physician, psychologist or expert witness summoned by the defendant unless not less than 15 days before trial a report of the examination has been transmitted to the district attorney and unless the prosecution has been afforded an opportunity to examine and observe the defendant if the opportunity has been seasonably demanded. The state may summon a physician, psychologist or other expert to testify, but that witness shall not give testimony unless not less than 15 days before trial a written report of his or her examination of the defendant has been transmitted to counsel for the defendant.
971.16(5)(5) If a physician, psychologist or other expert who has examined the defendant testifies concerning the defendant’s mental condition, he or she shall be permitted to make a statement as to the nature of his or her examination, his or her diagnosis of the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense charged, his or her opinion as to the ability of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct or to conform to the requirements of law and, if sufficient information is available to the physician, psychologist or expert to reach an opinion, his or her opinion on whether the defendant needs medication or treatment and whether the defendant is not competent to refuse medication or treatment for the defendant’s mental condition. Testimony concerning the defendant’s need for medication or treatment and competence to refuse medication or treatment may not be presented before the jury that is determining the ability of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct with the requirements of law at the time of the commission of the criminal offense charged. The physician, psychologist or other expert shall be permitted to make an explanation reasonably serving to clarify his or her diagnosis and opinion and may be cross-examined as to any matter bearing on his or her competency or credibility or the validity of his or her diagnosis or opinion.
971.16(6)(6) Nothing in this section shall require the attendance at the trial of any physician, psychologist or other expert witness for any purpose other than the giving of his or her testimony.
971.16 AnnotationDenying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict after the defendant’s sanity witnesses had testified and the state had rested, then allowing three witnesses appointed by the court to testify, was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Bergenthal, 47 Wis. 2d 668, 178 N.W.2d 16 (1970).
971.16 AnnotationThe rules stated in Bergenthal, 47 Wis. 2d 668 (1970), apply to a trial to the court. Lewis v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 469, 204 N.W.2d 527 (1973).
971.16 AnnotationIt was not error to allow a psychiatrist to express an opinion that no psychiatrist could form an opinion as to the defendant’s legal sanity because of unknown variables. Kemp v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 125, 211 N.W.2d 793 (1973).
971.16 Annotation“Mental condition” under sub. (3) refers to the defense of mental disease or defect, not to an intoxication defense. Loveday v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 503, 247 N.W.2d 116 (1976).
971.16 AnnotationAn indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to an examining physician, at state expense, when mental status is an issue, but this statute is not the vehicle to satisfy this right. State v. Burdick, 166 Wis. 2d 785, 480 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Erick O. Magett, 2014 WI 67 (Wis. 2014).
State v. Erick O. Magett, 2014 WI 67 (Wis. 2014). “" Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (2). The appointed physician or psychologist prepares a report, which is used as follows: [A]ny physician or psychologist appointed under sub.”
State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101 (Wis. 2000). “" Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (3). An evaluation for competency to stand trial assesses "the defendant's present mental capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his or her defense.”
State v. Wood, 2010 WI 17 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (3) sets forth the circumstances under which the institution may obtain such an order if, because of mental illness, developmental disability, alcoholism or drug dependence, and after the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to accepting the…”
Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74 (Wis. 2008). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.16 , the circuit court in the criminal case ordered Gray to undergo an examination to assess his competency to stand trial.”
State v. Sarinske, 280 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1979). “” 14 Sec. 971.16(3), Stats.: “(3) Whenever the defendant wishes to be examined by a physician or other expert of his own choice, the examiner shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purposes of examination.”
State v. Meeks, 2002 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (2). Additionally, as we will explain, defense counsel subsequently arranged for an examination by another psychologist, Dr.”
Loveday v. State, 247 N.W.2d 116 (Wis. 1976). “Crowley’s testimony was not allowed on the basis of sec. 971.16(3), Stats. This section in substance requires that any medical report of a defendant’s mental condition be forwarded to the district attorney at least 3 days before trial.”
State v. Fosnow, 2001 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 971.16 (1987-88). At least three psychiatrists examined Fosnow, and all concluded that he was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the offenses which would render him not responsible for his actions under WlS.”
State v. Pruitt, 289 N.W.2d 343 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “He thereupon retained two psychiatrists to examine him pursuant to sec. 971.16(3), Stats. In the list of witnesses submitted by the defendant, one of the psychiatrists, Dr.”
State v. Hollingsworth, 467 N.W.2d 555 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “7 See sec. 971.16(1), Stats. The psychiatrist's report pertained *892 directly to Hollingsworth's plea of not guilty by reason of mental defect.”
State v. Burdick, 480 N.W.2d 528 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We granted Bradley Burdick's petition for leave to appeal from an order denying his request for appointment of a physician under sec. 971.16, Stats. 1 Burdick is indigent.”
Lewis v. State, 204 N.W.2d 527 (Wis. 1973). “The court did appoint two psychiatrists on its own behalf as authorized by sec. 971.16, Stats. As to the question of mental responsibility, the defendant has the burden of proof to establish to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence that he had a…”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.16(1) — 3 cases
State v. Hollingsworth, 467 N.W.2d 555 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “7 See sec. 971.16(1), Stats. The psychiatrist's report pertained *892 directly to Hollingsworth's plea of not guilty by reason of mental defect.”
State v. Burdick, 480 N.W.2d 528 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We granted Bradley Burdick's petition for leave to appeal from an order denying his request for appointment of a physician under sec. 971.16, Stats. 1 Burdick is indigent.”
State v. Jacobson, 476 N.W.2d 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.16(2) — 3 cases
State v. Meeks, 2002 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (2). Additionally, as we will explain, defense counsel subsequently arranged for an examination by another psychologist, Dr.”
State v. Evans, 927 N.W.2d 159 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Salas, 688 N.W.2d 783 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.16(3) — 6 cases
State v. Wood, 2010 WI 17 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 971.16 (3) sets forth the circumstances under which the institution may obtain such an order if, because of mental illness, developmental disability, alcoholism or drug dependence, and after the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to accepting the…”
State v. Sarinske, 280 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1979). “” 14 Sec. 971.16(3), Stats.: “(3) Whenever the defendant wishes to be examined by a physician or other expert of his own choice, the examiner shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purposes of examination.”
Loveday v. State, 247 N.W.2d 116 (Wis. 1976). “Crowley’s testimony was not allowed on the basis of sec. 971.16(3), Stats. This section in substance requires that any medical report of a defendant’s mental condition be forwarded to the district attorney at least 3 days before trial.”
State v. Pruitt, 289 N.W.2d 343 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “He thereupon retained two psychiatrists to examine him pursuant to sec. 971.16(3), Stats. In the list of witnesses submitted by the defendant, one of the psychiatrists, Dr.”
State v. Burdick, 480 N.W.2d 528 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We granted Bradley Burdick's petition for leave to appeal from an order denying his request for appointment of a physician under sec. 971.16, Stats. 1 Burdick is indigent.”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.16(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jarrod J. Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.