State v. C.L.

To permit commitment on the basis of dangerousness to others, the state must establish "that actual future violence is highly likely." State v. M. A., 276 Or App at 629. “Past acts, including verbal acts, can justify a finding of dangerousness, if they ‘form a foundation for predicting future dangerousness.’” M. R., 225 Or App at 574.

Appellant appealed an order finding him to have a mental illness "that is dangerous to others and committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days." Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that the record was sufficient to establish the outcome reached by the court. On appeal, Appellant argued that the State failed to establish that he possessed a mental illness making him "dangerous to others." In response, the State argued that Appellant's mental health history, coupled with his past incidents of violence against others, satisfied their burden of proof. To permit commitment on the basis of dangerousness to others, the State must establish "that actual future violence is highly likely." State v. M. A., 276 Or App at 629. “Past acts, including verbal acts, can justify a finding of dangerousness, if they ‘form a foundation for predicting future dangerousness.’” M.R., 225 Or App at 574. As such, the trial court determined that appellants past acts served as legally sufficient evidence. Affirmed.