State v. M. T.

To establish a mentally ill person “is a danger to herself,” the state must establish that the person is likely to cause life-threatening physical harm to herself in the near future. State v. B. B., 240 Or App 75, 82-83, 245 P3d 697 (2010). Further, the “threat of serious physical harm” must be “particularized” and “highly probable.” State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 628-29, 371 P3d 495 (2016).

Appellant challenged “an order involuntarily committing her” to the Oregon Health Authority.  Appellant argued that the trial court erred when it concluded “that her mental illness caused her to be dangerous to herself.”  In response, the State argued that Appellant’s “intimidating and threatening behavior” indicated that Appellant is a danger to herself.  To establish a mentally ill person “is a danger to herself,” the state must establish that the person is likely to cause life-threatening physical harm to herself in the near future.  State v. B. B., 240 Or App 75, 82-83, 245 P3d 697 (2010).  Further, the “threat of serious physical harm” must be “particularized” and “highly probable.”  State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 628-29, 371 P3d 495 (2016).  The evidence showed that Appellant invaded the personal space of a staff worker, deliberately bumped into another, threw water on a third, wandered around at an unspecified time in the past, and made a threat to kill herself and others that was not acted upon.  The Court held that this was insufficient “to support a danger-to-self commitment.”  Reversed.