State v. Peter D. Farnsworth

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
August 10, 2021
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP1367-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2020CF149

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

PETER D. FARNSWORTH,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Sawyer County:
JOHN M. YACKEL, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded for further
proceedings.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Nashold, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2020AP1367-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Peter Farnsworth appeals an order committing him
for treatment in order to restore him to competency to proceed in his criminal case,
and subjecting him to involuntary medication. Farnsworth argues the circuit court
erroneously ordered his involuntary medication under WIS. STAT. § 971.14(2)(f)
(2019-20).1 The State concedes, and we agree, that the court erroneously
exercised its discretion under § 971.14(2)(f) because the court had already found
Farnsworth to be incompetent and he was no longer under an order for
competency examination. Because we resolve Farnsworth’s appeal on statutory
grounds, we adhere to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and we decline to
address Farnsworth’s other argument that § 971.14(2)(f) is facially
unconstitutional. We reverse the court’s order for involuntary medication and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶2 Farnsworth also contends the circuit court erred by denying his
motion to stay the involuntary medication order pending this appeal. The court’s
decision to deny a stay, however, is moot. Because we stayed the involuntary
medication order pending appeal and because we reverse the involuntary
medication order in this decision, resolution of this issue will have no practical
effect on the underlying controversy.

BACKGROUND

¶3 On May 23, 2020, Farnsworth allegedly stabbed and attacked his
mother and father. Although Farnsworth’s mother survived, his father succumbed
to his injuries and died. Farnsworth allegedly called dispatch to report the

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise
noted.

2
No. 2020AP1367-CR

stabbing, and he reported that “the threat had been neutralized.” The State
subsequently charged Farnsworth with one count each of first-degree intentional
homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and aggravated battery.

¶4 At Farnsworth’s initial appearance, the circuit court ordered a
competency examination to determine whether Farnsworth was competent to
proceed to trial. Psychologist Rebecca Seifert Lynch evaluated Farnsworth and
completed a competency report. She concluded that Farnsworth was not
competent to proceed, but he would likely become competent within the
permissible time frame if he received psychiatric treatment.

¶5 On July 9, 2020, the circuit court held a competency hearing.
Farnsworth disputed Seifert Lynch’s conclusions, and he stated that he was
competent. To prove Farnsworth’s incompetency, the prosecutor called Seifert
Lynch to testify. Seifert Lynch expressed concern that Farnsworth consistently
verbalized “delusional beliefs” and that those beliefs “influenced his ability to
discuss his case in a rational manner.” She testified that Farnsworth’s delusions
interfered with his ability to cooperate, assist, and accept advice from legal
counsel. Consistent with her report, Seifert Lynch opined that Farnsworth was not
competent to proceed, but he could be restored to competency with inpatient
treatment.

¶6 The State also questioned Seifert Lynch regarding Farnsworth’s
dangerousness. Although Farnsworth had previously given “mixed messages”
regarding plans to harm himself, Seifert Lynch testified that “he did not have an
imminent plan to harm himself.” She also testified that Farnsworth previously
stated “he did not see the need to harm others” and believed “the threat had been
neutralized.” Despite those statements, Seifert Lynch expressed concern that

3
No. 2020AP1367-CR

Farnsworth “[was] a risk to others” because of “his growing delusional beliefs.”
She agreed with the prosecutor that Farnsworth’s “delusional thinking is of such a
nature to lead him to potentially physically harm himself or others.”

¶7 Based on Seifert Lynch’s testimony, the prosecutor argued that
Farnsworth was incompetent and should be subject to an involuntary medication
order. The prosecutor did not, however, seek the involuntary medication order
under WIS. STAT. § 971.14(3)(dm) because he did not believe he could satisfy the
factors under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Instead, he argued that
the court should order involuntary medication under § 971.14(2)(f). Farnsworth’s
attorney argued that Farnsworth was competent, but he never responded to the
prosecutor’s argument regarding involuntary medication under § 971.14(2)(f).

¶8 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found that
Farnsworth was not competent to proceed, and it ordered him committed for
treatment. Relying on WIS. STAT. § 971.14(2)(f), the court also ordered
involuntary medication because it found that “medication [was] necessary to
prevent physical harm to [Farnsworth] or others.”

¶9 Farnsworth subsequently moved the circuit court to stay its order of
commitment for treatment, which included the involuntary medication order,
while he appealed. On August 7, 2020, the court denied Farnsworth’s motion.
Farnsworth then filed a notice of appeal that same day and moved this court for a
stay of the involuntary medication order pending appeal. We granted a temporary
stay of that order to allow for further briefing on the motion. After the State
informed us that it did not contest the motion, we granted a stay of the involuntary
medication order pending the disposition of this appeal.

4
No. 2020AP1367-CR

DISCUSSION

¶10 We begin by first determining whether the circuit court erred when it
subjected Farnsworth to an involuntary medication order under WIS. STAT.
§ 971.14(2)(f). Although both parties agree the court erred, they do so for
different reasons. Farnsworth argues that the court relied on an improper legal
standard when issuing the order under subsec. (2)(f) and that insufficient evidence
existed to support an order under that subsection. The State, on the other hand,
contends more simply that the court erred in its interpretation and application of
subsec. (2)(f). The State argues subsec. (2)(f) applies only during the time period
in which the defendant is ordered to undergo a competency examination. The
State therefore argues subsec. (2)(f) does not apply to a defendant, like
Farnsworth, who has already been found incompetent and committed for treatment
under § 971.14(5).

¶11 We agree with the State that Farnsworth’s appeal can be resolved
through the proper interpretation and application of WIS. STAT. § 971.14(2)(f).2
Statutory interpretation and the application of a statute to a given set of facts are
questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Wiskerchen, 2019 WI 1, ¶16,
385 Wis. 2d 120, 921 N.W.2d 730.

¶12 WISCONSIN STAT. § 971.14(2)(f) provides that “[a] defendant
ordered to undergo examination under [§ 971.14] may receive voluntary treatment
appropriate to his or her medical needs” or may be involuntarily medicated “in a

2
Because we agree with the State’s statutory interpretation argument and we reverse the
circuit court’s order, we need not address Farnsworth’s arguments on this issue. See Turner v.
Taylor, 2003 WI App 256, ¶1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628, 673 N.W.2d 716 (court of appeals need not
address all issues raised by the parties if one is dispositive).

5
No. 2020AP1367-CR

situation where the medication or treatment is necessary to prevent physical harm
to the defendant or others.” Section 971.14 establishes the mechanism by which
to determine whether the defendant in a criminal case is competent to proceed.
State v. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93, ¶6, 312 Wis. 2d 695, 754 N.W.2d 249. Thus,
the plain language of subsec. (2)(f) only applies to a defendant ordered to undergo
a competency examination under § 971.14. In other words, subsec. (2)(f) does not
apply to a defendant who is not presently ordered to undergo a competency
examination under § 971.14.

¶13 Although the circuit court had previously ordered Farnsworth to
undergo a competency examination, Farnsworth was no longer subject to that
order by the time the court ordered involuntary medication under WIS. STAT.
§ 971.14(2)(f). Rather, Seifert Lynch had already completed a competency
examination and testified at the competency hearing. Based on Seifert Lynch’s
testimony, the court found that Farnsworth was not competent to proceed to trial
and ordered that he be committed for treatment to return him to competency. The
court then—after finding Farnsworth incompetent—ordered that Farnsworth could
not refuse medication because the medication was necessary to prevent physical
harm to himself or others. Because the court had already completed an
examination and found Farnsworth to be incompetent, however, by statute he was
no longer a defendant ordered to undergo examination under § 971.14. The court
therefore erred when it concluded that Farnsworth could be involuntarily
medicated under subsec. (2)(f). Accordingly, we reverse the court’s involuntary
medication order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶14 The parties also dispute whether WIS. STAT. § 971.14(2)(f) is
facially unconstitutional, either on due process grounds or equal protection
grounds. We normally do not decide constitutional questions if the case can be

6
No. 2020AP1367-CR

resolved on other grounds. Labor & Farm Party v. Elections Bd., State of Wis.,
117 Wis. 2d 351, 354, 344 N.W.2d 177 (1984). Because we reverse the circuit
court’s involuntary medication order on statutory grounds, we adhere to the
doctrine of constitutional avoidance and decline to address the parties’
constitutional arguments. See State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, ¶12, 382 Wis. 2d 476,
914 N.W.2d 141.

¶15 Finally, we address the parties’ arguments regarding whether the
circuit court erred when it declined to stay the involuntary medication order
pending this appeal. Farnsworth argues the court erred in denying the stay
because he was entitled to an automatic stay under Scott. He also argues the court
improperly placed the burden on him to satisfy the factors outlined in State v.
Gudenschwager, 191 Wis. 2d 431, 529 N.W.2d 225 (1995). The State responds
by contending that those issues are moot because we granted a stay pending
appeal, which was the same relief Farnsworth sought from the circuit court.3 In
reply, Farnsworth asserts that we should nevertheless address his arguments
because the circuit court will likely address issues regarding competency and
involuntary medication on remand. He argues his case is distinguishable from
State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, 387 Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165, because he
has not yet regained competency, nor has he pled guilty. Farnsworth also argues
that we should clarify when an automatic stay under Scott occurs.

3
Although the prosecutor argued to the circuit court that the automatic stay in State v.
Scott, 2018 WI 74, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141, does not apply to involuntary medication
orders under WIS. STAT. § 971.14(2)(f), the State concedes on appeal that Scott’s automatic stay
requirement “applies to all involuntary medication orders.” The State also concedes on appeal—
again contrary to the prosecutor’s argument to the circuit court—that the defendant need not
satisfy the factors outlined in State v. Gudenschwager, 191 Wis. 2d 431, 529 N.W.2d 225 (1995),
before obtaining an automatic stay. The State notes, however, that Scott “did not specify what
triggers an automatic stay pending appeal of an involuntary medication order.”

7
No. 2020AP1367-CR

¶16 “An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on
the underlying controversy.” Fitzgerald, 387 Wis. 2d 384, ¶21 (citation omitted).
A decision will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy if an
appellant is no longer subject to the appealed order. See id. Generally, we decline
to reach moot issues. Id.

¶17 We granted Farnsworth the precise relief that he sought from the
circuit court on this issue—a stay of the involuntary medication order pending
appeal. Because we reverse the circuit court’s involuntary medication order,
Farnsworth is therefore no longer subject to that order on remand. Thus, any
decision on whether the court erred in denying the stay would have no practical
effect on the underlying controversy. Although the court might again consider
involuntary medication on remand, this possibility does not preclude us from
concluding that this issue is currently moot. We cannot predict what will occur on
remand or whether the issue of staying an involuntary medication order pending
appeal will arise again. Because we previously granted a stay pending appeal and
because Farnsworth is not currently subject to an involuntary medication order, the
issue is moot.

¶18 Our conclusion is consistent with Fitzgerald. In Fitzgerald, our
supreme court concluded that the issues presented in that appeal were moot
because the defendant was no longer subject to the medication order, as a result of
him regaining competency and pleading guilty. Id. Although Farnsworth may not
have regained competency or pled guilty, we have reversed the circuit court’s
operative involuntary medication order. Therefore, Farnsworth is no longer
subject to the appealed order, just like the defendant in Fitzgerald. See id. As
such, Farnsworth’s appeal on this issue is moot.

8
No. 2020AP1367-CR

By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded for further
proceedings.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5.

9