State of Oregon v. T.W.

In order to prove that a person is a danger to himself, the state must show that their “mental disorder will cause him to behave in a way that is likely to result in actual serious physical harm to himself in the near future.However, the required expectation of actual serious physical harm must be established by more than mere speculation or conjecture.” State v. L. D., 247 Or App 394, 399, 270 P3d 324 (2011)

Appellant seeked reversal of commitment to a mental hospital. On appeal, appellant argued that the evidence presented at the the time of the hearing lacks clear and convincing standard that he was a danger to himself or others. In response the state asserted that they presented sufficient evidence to sup­port the trial court’s decision that appellant presented a danger to others. In order to prove that a person is a danger to himself, the state must show that their “mental disorder will cause him to behave in a way that is likely to result in actual serious physical harm to himself in the near future.However, the required expectation of actual serious physical harm must be established by more than mere speculation or conjecture.” State v. L. D., 247 Or App 394, 399, 270 P3d 324 (2011). The evidence presented by the state included facts that were not viewed to result in actual serious physical harm, the past evidence was too far removed from the current incidents and was insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that appellant is a danger to himself. It was concluded “that the state has not produced extraordinarily persuasive evidence to demonstrate that it is highly probable that appellant will engage in harmful conduct toward others as a result of his mental disorder.” Reversed.