State v. T.T.

The testimony of “mental health experts, the person’s past acts, and the person’s apparent condition at the time of hearing” can be used to determine whether a person is a danger to others. State v. M.R., 225 Or App 569, 574, 202 P3d 221 (2009).

Appellant appealed an order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) for a period not to exceed 180 days. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that she was a danger to others. Appellant argued that the trial court did not consider that the stabbing of her husband was an isolated incident and therefore could not attribute that to the danger to others criteria. Evidence of danger can be proven by showing that there is a likely high chance of actual future violence. State v. M.A., 276 Or App 624, 629, 371 P3d 495 (2016). The state has the burden of proof. The testimony of “mental health experts, the person’s past acts, and the person’s apparent condition at the time of hearing” can be used to determine whether a person is a danger to others. State v. M.R., 225 Or App 569, 574, 202 P3d 221 (2009). The Court held that the record supported a finding that appellant was a threat to others because she was not willing to seek medication, had impaired judgment, and past behavior included a violent act. Affirmed.