State v. M. C. D.

In order to continue an involuntary commitment, the State must show that a person will be put at a “nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm” due to an inability to “provide for his or her basic personal needs” if released. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). Neither homelessness nor a likely inability to obtain or prepare food is sufficient to support continued commitment. State v. C. M. C., 301 Or App 206, 213, 454 P3d 30 (2019); State v. S. T., 294 Or App 683, 685-87, 432 P3d 378 (2018).

Appellant appealed an order continuing her involuntary commitment to a state mental facility. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s finding that she would be unable to provide for her own basic needs if released. On appeal, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s determination that she would be at risk of serious physical harm if released. In response, the State argued a risk of serious physical harm existed because Appellant lacked money for food and shelter and refused to accept assistance. In order to continue an involuntary commitment, the State must show that a person will be put at a “nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm” due to an inability to “provide for his or her basic personal needs” if released. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). Neither homelessness nor a likely inability to obtain or prepare food is sufficient to support continued commitment. State v. C. M. C., 301 Or App 206, 213, 454 P3d 30 (2019); State v. S. T., 294 Or App 683, 685-87, 432 P3d 378 (2018). The Court held that the concerns expressed by Appellant’s doctor and social worker were generalized risks connected with homelessness and the inability to buy food. The Court therefore held that there was insufficient evidence to support the order to continue Appellant’s commitment. Reversed.