State v. S.T.

The question to ask is "whether the evidence described . . . viewed in the light most favoring the state, provides 'a concrete and particularized foundation for a prediction of future dangerousness absent commitment.” State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellant appealed the trial court's decision to continue his commitment to the Oregon Health Authority based on a finding that Appellant's “mental disorder makes him dangerous to others.” Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that he is "a person with mental illness" and that his mental disorder makes him a danger to others. On appeal, Appellant argued the record did not support the trial court's determination. In response, the State argued the record did support the trial court's findings because there was evidence Appellant would stop taking his medication and that would lead to him becoming more aggressive. The question to ask is "whether the evidence described . . . viewed in the light most favoring the state, provides 'a concrete and particularized foundation for a prediction of future dangerousness absent commitment.” State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court concluded that the record was sufficient to predict Appellant's future dangerousness. Affirmed.