Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (2026)
Rights of persons subject to petition
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
980.03(1)(1) The circuit court in which a petition under s. 980.02 is filed shall conduct all hearings under this chapter. The court shall give the person who is the subject of the petition reasonable notice of the time and place of each such hearing. The court may designate additional persons to receive these notices.
980.03(2)(2) Except as provided in ss. 980.038 (2) and 980.09 and without limitation by enumeration, at any hearing under this chapter, the person who is the subject of the petition has the right to:
980.03(2)(a)(a) Counsel. In any situation under this chapter in which the person has a right to be represented by counsel, the court shall refer the person as soon as practicable to the state public defender, who shall appoint counsel for the person under s. 977.08 without a determination of indigency.
980.03(3)(3) The person who is the subject of the petition, the person’s attorney, or the petitioner may request that a trial under s. 980.05 be to a jury. A request for a jury trial shall be made as provided under s. 980.05 (2). Notwithstanding s. 980.05 (2), if the person, the person’s attorney, or the petitioner does not request a jury trial, the court may on its own motion require that the trial be to a jury. The jury shall be selected as provided under s. 980.05 (2m). A verdict of a jury under this chapter is not valid unless it is unanimous.
980.03 AnnotationThere are circumstances when comment on a defendant’s silence is permitted. If a defendant refuses to be interviewed by the state’s psychologist and the defense attorney challenges the psychologist’s findings based on the lack of an interview, it is appropriate for the psychologist to testify about the refusal. State v. Adams, 223 Wis. 2d 60, 588 N.W.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-3136.
980.03 AnnotationIf all jurors agree that a defendant suffers from a mental disease, unanimity requirements are met even if the jurors disagree on the disease that predisposes the defendant to reoffend. State v. Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis. 2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97, 98-2455.
980.03 AnnotationThis chapter provides its own procedures for commencing actions, and, as such, chs. 801 and 802 are inapplicable to the commencement of actions under this chapter. State v. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 136, 246 Wis. 2d 233, 631 N.W.2d 240, 99-2145.
980.03 AnnotationThe circuit court must appoint an examiner for the court under sub. (3) regardless of whether the court also appointed an examiner for the petitioner under former sub. (4), 2001 stats. An indigent party petitioning for supervised release is not entitled under former sub. (4), 2001 stats., to an examiner of the party’s choice but is entitled to a “qualified and available” court-appointed examiner. Discussing requirements for a qualified examiner. State v. Thiel, 2004 WI App 225, 277 Wis. 2d 698, 691 N.W.2d 388, 03-2649.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: State v. Thiel, 2004 WI App 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Thiel, 2004 WI App 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “08(3), and one for him under Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (4). He further contends that § 980.”
State v. Morford, 2004 WI 5 (Wis. 2004). “03 (2), a person has the right to counsel, [2] the right to remain silent, [3] the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, [4] and the right to have the hearing recorded by a court reporter. [5] Section 980.”
State v. Post, 541 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1995). “Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (4). The person is entitled to a full adversarial trial on the allegations in the petition.”
State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2015 WI 3 (Wis. 2015). “19 Wis. Stat. § 980.03 . 20 Wis. Stat. § 980.”
Milwaukee Cnty. v. Mary F.-R., 823 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. 2013). “Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (3); Wis. Stat. § 980.”
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “Kotkin's report resulted in violation of Brown's constitutional right to confrontation or his statutory right under Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (2)(c) to "[p]resent and cross-examine witnesses.”
State Ex Rel. Marberry v. MacHt, 2000 WI 79 (Wis. 2003). “[5] At the time Marberry was committed in 1998, this statute allowed a petition for supervised release after only six months.”
In Re Commitment of Lombard, 2004 WI 95 (Wis. 2004). “980] petition" has a statutory right to "[r]emain silent," Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (2)(b), but we have concluded that this right "plainly does not apply" to a pre-petition examination.”
Steven v. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47 (Wis. 2004). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 980.03 , 980.05(lm). If the legislature had intended to enact a right to a jury trial in TPR cases that is the equivalent of a constitutional criminal jury trial right, it would have expressly said so, as it did in Chapter 980.”
State v. Paulick, 570 N.W.2d 626 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “" At this second hearing, the person has the right to be present and is afforded the protections listed in § 980.03, Stats. See § 980.09(2)(b). Section 980.”
State v. Zanelli, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “" Zanelli, however, relies upon the provisions of §§ 980.03(2) and 980.05(1m), STATS., which effectively incorporate into sexual predator proceedings the constitutional rights of those accused of a crime.”
State v. West, 2011 WI 83 (Wis. 2011). “See Wis. Stat. § 980.03 . Where the legislature is able to establish conditions necessary for parole, it similarly should be able to set conditions for supervised release.”
— Wis. Stat. § 980.03(1) — 1 case
State v. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wis. Stat. § 980.03(2) — 6 cases
State v. Paulick, 570 N.W.2d 626 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “" At this second hearing, the person has the right to be present and is afforded the protections listed in § 980.03, Stats. See § 980.09(2)(b). Section 980.”
State v. Zanelli, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “" Zanelli, however, relies upon the provisions of §§ 980.03(2) and 980.05(1m), STATS., which effectively incorporate into sexual predator proceedings the constitutional rights of those accused of a crime.”
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “Kotkin's report resulted in violation of Brown's constitutional right to confrontation or his statutory right under Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (2)(c) to "[p]resent and cross-examine witnesses.”
State v. Castillo, 556 N.W.2d 425 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Thiel, 2001 WI App 32 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wis. Stat. § 980.03(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Denman, 2001 WI App 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Jones, 2013 WI App 151 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wis. Stat. § 980.03(3) — 4 cases
Milwaukee Cnty. v. Mary F.-R., 823 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. 2013). “Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (3); Wis. Stat. § 980.”
State Ex Rel. Marberry v. MacHt, 2002 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Thiel, 2001 WI App 32 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Milwaukee Cnty. v. Mary F.-R. (Wis. 2013).
— Wis. Stat. § 980.03(4) — 7 cases
State v. Morford, 2004 WI 5 (Wis. 2004). “03 (2), a person has the right to counsel, [2] the right to remain silent, [3] the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, [4] and the right to have the hearing recorded by a court reporter. [5] Section 980.”
State v. Thiel, 2004 WI App 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “08(3), and one for him under Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (4). He further contends that § 980.”
State v. Rachel, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Thiel, 2001 WI App 32 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
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.