State v. J.W.

"A person may be committed to DHS for care, treatment, or training if the court determines that (1) the person has an intellectual disability; (2) because of the intellectual disability, the person is either (a) dangerous to self, (b) dangerous to others, or (c) unable to provide for personal needs and not receiving care as is necessary for the person’s health, safety, or rehabilitation; and (3) voluntary treatment and training or conditional release is not in the person’s best interest. ORS 427.290.”

Appellant appealed a judgment committing him to the Department of Human Services (DHS)(ORS 427.290) under the trial court’s finding that “due to an intellectual disability, [Appellant] was unable to provide for his personal needs and was dangerous to himself.” On appeal, the Court only addresses Appellant’s contention that the evidence of Appellant’s intellectual disability was improperly presented to the court. "A person may be committed to DHS for care, treatment, or training if the court determines that (1) the person has an intellectual disability; (2) because of the intellectual disability, the person is either (a) dangerous to self, (b) dangerous to others, or (c) unable to provide for personal needs and not receiving care as is necessary for the person’s health, safety, or rehabilitation; and (3) voluntary treatment and training or conditional release is not in the person’s best interest. ORS 427.290.” The Court found that there was a pre-commitment report evaluating Appellant’s IQ in the court docket. In addition, while the report was not mentioned in the trial, it was received by the trial court at the beginning of, and referenced at the closing of the trial as an evidential basis for the finding of an intellectual disability. Affirmed.