The defense is seeking a second psychiatric opinion before the felony prosecution of 83-year-old Richard Engberg can move toward trial.
STURGEON BAY, Wis. — The next major decision in the criminal case against Richard C. Engberg will not determine whether he caused the death of the 79-year-old woman he is accused of neglecting. Instead, a Door County judge must first decide whether the 83-year-old defendant is mentally competent to take part in the proceedings against him.
That threshold issue has put the underlying felony case on hold. Engberg faces one count of recklessly subjecting an individual at risk to abuse causing death after his partner was found gravely ill near the front porch of their Ellison Bay-area residence and died at a Green Bay hospital three days later. The defense has challenged a court-ordered competency evaluation and received permission to seek a second examination. Judge David Weber has scheduled a Dec. 17 status conference, delaying a final determination on whether Engberg presently understands the court process and can assist his attorney.
The distinction is important because competency is separate from guilt. A competency examination addresses a defendant’s current ability to understand the nature of a prosecution and participate in a defense. It does not decide whether the criminal allegations are true, whether a defendant intended to harm anyone or whether the defendant had a particular mental condition when the alleged offense occurred. In Engberg’s case, the issue emerged after emergency responders and a sheriff’s investigator separately expressed concerns about his cognitive abilities during the investigation.
The competency process formally began at Engberg’s Sept. 21 initial appearance. His attorney asked Weber for a psychiatric review, and the judge ordered one. An Oct. 29 hearing was later scheduled to discuss the result. Instead of resolving the issue, that hearing produced a challenge from the defense. Attorney Carrie LaPlant, appearing for assigned public defender Shannon Viel, told the court that Viel disputed the first examiner’s findings. District Attorney Colleen Nordin said the prosecution accepted the report, but she did not object to giving the defense more time to obtain another professional assessment.
Weber granted the request and set the December conference after allowing roughly 45 days for the defense to locate another examiner. Until the competency question is decided, the allegations contained in the criminal complaint remain untested. Engberg has not been convicted and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He remains in custody on $100,000 bail. No trial date has been announced, and the latest reported court action concerns only how the competency dispute will proceed.
Behind that procedural dispute is a case that began with a severe medical emergency. Engberg called 911 on Sept. 7 to seek help for the woman, whose name has not been made public in the complaint. Paramedics arriving at the residence found her lying on the ground near the porch beneath a comforter. She was barely responsive, according to reports based on the charging document, and had extensive open wounds. Responders reported signs of infestation in some wounds and said she reacted in extreme pain when they attempted to move and treat her.
Emergency personnel removed the woman from the property and transported her toward higher-level medical care. She was taken to the Ephraim-Gibraltar Airport and then flown aboard Eagle III to HSHS St. Vincent Hospital in Green Bay. She died Sept. 10. Engberg had been arrested a day earlier. Prosecutors charged him with recklessly subjecting an individual at risk to abuse causing death, an offense classified as a Class C felony. Wisconsin law sets the maximum penalty for a Class C felony at 40 years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $100,000 or both if a defendant is convicted.
Investigators say the woman’s condition had not developed suddenly on the day Engberg called for help. Engberg told them that her health began declining weeks earlier, first with confusion, memory problems and erratic driving. He later described an event he believed resembled a severe seizure, including twitching and unusual speech. He said bruising and blistering developed afterward. According to his account, the woman resisted hospital treatment and wanted to wait to see whether she would improve. Published accounts of the complaint do not indicate that she received professional medical care during that period.
Engberg said the woman eventually began remaining near the porch because she found it comfortable and liked being outside. He also said she complained of pain when he tried to touch or move her. By the time he contacted emergency services, he told investigators, she had been lying outside for more than a week and possibly as long as two weeks. He said he did not know exactly when she had fallen from the porch area. Authorities allege that the duration and severity of the situation demonstrate reckless neglect, regardless of Engberg’s assertion that the woman preferred to remain there.
His statements describe a series of measures he regarded as caregiving. Engberg said he offered the woman water and brought foods she would still accept, including yogurt and ice cream. He said he wiped her body and at times used an adjustable garden hose to apply a light spray of water. He told investigators that she initially appeared to appreciate the water. Later, he said, she stopped accepting food and liquids and eventually stopped responding. His account also says the woman had told him she did not want to go to a hospital until her condition became more serious.
That explanation is likely to be significant if the criminal case reaches a fact-finding stage, but it has not been accepted by a court as proof of what the woman wanted or understood. She did not survive to give an account in the proceeding. Engberg also told investigators that he spoke with his brother before contacting 911 and that the brother urged him to call emergency services. The complaint therefore documents both Engberg’s claim that he was following the woman’s wishes and the prosecution’s allegation that the prolonged failure to secure medical treatment constituted reckless abuse.
Responders’ impressions of Engberg added another layer to the case. Paramedics reportedly believed he was not capable of properly caring for himself, much less someone in the woman’s deteriorating condition. A sheriff’s investigator also expressed discomfort over whether Engberg understood his rights when officers attempted to advise him of them. Those observations were not themselves formal competency findings, but they provided context for the defense request that later led Weber to order a psychiatric examination.
The woman and Engberg had reportedly shared the residence for about nine years. Engberg referred to the relationship as living together as friends, while authorities described her as his girlfriend or domestic partner. He told investigators that she had a son living in Luxemburg who had not visited since the previous fall or winter and said another son had died about three years earlier. Police have not named the woman in the complaint, and the available reports do not indicate that authorities have publicly released her identity through another official source.
The circumstances surprised residents in Ellison Bay who spoke to local television reporters after the charge became public. They described the pair as people who had participated in the community for years and said they were unaware that the woman had serious health problems. Residents also said they did not know of problems between her and Engberg. Their comments provide community context but do not establish what occurred at the home during the weeks investigators say the woman’s health was failing.
The legal process now returns to the unresolved question of Engberg’s ability to participate in his defense. The defense has challenged the court’s first evaluation, the prosecution has accepted it and the judge has allowed a second opinion before deciding what comes next. Engberg remains jailed and has not entered a trial on the abuse allegation. The Dec. 17 status conference is the next confirmed proceeding, after which the court is expected to determine how and when the competency question will be resolved.
Author note: Last updated Nov. 7, 2026.