State v. N. S.

A court may commit someone to the Oregon Health Authority if, due to mental illness, the person is “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid” physical harm serious enough to require treatment in the near, but not immediate, future. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B); State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 239-240, 488 P3d 656 (2019).

Appellant disputed her civil commitment to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA).  Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence she should be committed.  On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court’s finding that she would be “unable to care for her basic needs” due to mental illness was speculative.  In response, the State argued the evidence of Appellant’s inability to care for herself was clear and convincing.  A court may commit someone to the OHA if, due to mental illness, the person is “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid” physical harm serious enough to require treatment in the near, but not immediate, future. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B); State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 239-240, 488 P3d 656 (2019).  The Court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Appellant would be unable to meet the basic personal needs required to “avoid serious physical harm in the near future.”  The court based this conclusion upon the evidence in the record, including Appellant’s multiple claims of sexual assault, lack of a viable plan to obtain housing and food, and her refusal or inability to take her medications.  Thus, the Court held that Appellant could be committed to the OHA. Affirmed.