State v. T.M.

A past violent act “must provide a foundation to predict future dangerousness,” not merely have occurred, to support a determination that a person is dangerous to others due to a mental disorder. State v. L.R., 283 OR App 618, 625, 391 P3d 880 (2017).

Appellant sought reversal of an order committing her involuntarily to the Oregon Health Authority. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that she was a person with mental illness within the meaning of the civil commitment statutes. On appeal, Appellant argued the evidence on the record was insufficient to establish that she was a danger to others due to a mental health disorder. A past violent act “must provide a foundation to predict future dangerousness,” not merely have occurred, to support a determination that a person is dangerous to others due to a mental disorder. State v. L.R., 283 OR App 618, 625, 391 P3d 880 (2017). The Court found that this case consisted of one isolated incident of near-violence by Appellant and there was no evidence presented that Appellant ever engaged in any other violent acts at any other time. Further, the Court found that being verbally disruptive and rude at the civil commitment hearing as the result of an untreated mental disorder was not sufficient to establish that “actual future violence” was “highly likely.” Thus, the Court held that the record was legally insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that Appellant was dangerous to others, due to her mental disorder, at the time of the hearing. Reversed.