State v. Z. W. Y. (A167562)

The court may determine whether a party's mental disorder makes them "highly likely to engage in future violence towards others, absent commitment." See State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019).

In an appeal from State v. Z. W. Y. (A166276), the Court noted a more complete development of the record provided evidence that Appellant's disorder had led him to violence in the past, and that he had a desire to punish A for perceived wrongdoing and would stop taking his medications upon release. Appellant assigned error to the determination that he was a danger to others around him. On appeal, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence on the record to support the determination. The State argued that evidence of Appellant's anger toward A and assaults on other people was sufficient to support a determination that future violence was highly likely. The court may determine whether a party's mental disorder makes them "highly likely to engage in future violence towards others, absent commitment." See State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019). The Court found that the trial court did not err when holding that evidence of past assaults and persistent delusional anger was sufficient evidence that Appellant would be a danger to others without commitment. Affirmed.