Background
Milwaukee police encountered N.A.T., identified by the court under the pseudonym Natalie, after responding to a trespassing complaint at Fiserv Forum. When officers escorted her from the property, she attempted to reenter, hit an officer, resisted being taken into custody, and later spat on the officer’s face while he was securing her in a squad car. The State charged her with discharging bodily fluids at a public safety worker, obstructing an officer, and misdemeanor bail jumping.
After a psychologist found Natalie incompetent to proceed, the circuit court suspended the criminal case and committed her to the Department of Health Services. Natalie displayed severe symptoms of untreated psychosis at Mendota Mental Health Institute and refused medication. Following a hearing, the circuit court authorized involuntary medication to restore her competency, concluding that the spitting elevated the case sufficiently to give the State an important interest in prosecution. Natalie appealed, challenging only that conclusion under the first factor of Sell v. United States.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the order authorizing involuntary medication. It held that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had a sufficiently important interest in bringing Natalie to trial to overcome her due process liberty interest in avoiding unwanted psychotropic medication.
The court rejected the State’s proposed categorical rule that any offense carrying a potential punishment of at least six months is serious under Sell. Evaluating Natalie’s particular circumstances, the court found that Wisconsin statutes did not identify her offenses as serious for other purposes, her practical criminal exposure was relatively limited, and her conduct caused no injury or substantial risk of injury. Although resisting arrest and spitting on an officer involved a physical element, the record showed no infectious-disease risk or other aggravating circumstance sufficient to make the offenses serious in nature, scope, or penalty. Because the threshold Sell factor was not satisfied, the court did not address the remaining factors governing medical necessity and appropriateness.
Key Takeaways
- Whether a prosecution implicates an important governmental interest under Sell requires a case-specific assessment rather than a categorical rule based solely on the maximum potential sentence.
- Relevant considerations include legislative treatment of the offenses, the defendant’s realistic criminal exposure, the nature and scope of the alleged conduct, and any special circumstances affecting the State’s interest.
- The reversal applies only to the involuntary-medication authorization; Natalie remains subject to the competency commitment until it expires under Wisconsin law, and separate civil-commitment proceedings may be available.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that even felony charges do not automatically permit the State to medicate an incompetent defendant forcibly for competency restoration. Wisconsin courts must weigh the specific prosecution against the defendant’s substantial bodily-integrity interest and require clear and convincing proof that the alleged crimes are sufficiently serious.
The unpublished per curiam opinion also declines to treat the Sixth Amendment’s six-month jury-trial threshold as a shortcut for the first Sell factor, reinforcing that seriousness in the forced-medication context depends on the individual facts, penalties, and governmental interests at stake.