State v. D.F.U.

To preserve a challenge on appeal, an appellant must raise the issue before the trial court with enough specificity to allow the court to consider the issue and rule on it.

Appellant was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was committed to a secure residential facility. Appellant appeals the court’s recommitment order. Appellant assigned error the court’s order claiming that the record lacks “clear and convincing evidence” that the needs for commitment were met. Appellant acknowledges that their attorney declined to give closing arguments, however, Appellant relies on their own testimony during the hearing to preserve the argument made on appeal. To preserve a challenge on appeal, an appellant must raise the issue before the trial court with enough specificity to allow the court to consider the issue and rule on it. The Court held that the Appellant failed to do that because they did not make a closing argument or otherwise alert the State or trial court that there was a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence providing an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the Court stated that Appellant has not asked for de novo review and, instead, challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. There is a difference between a dispute on the facts and a dispute on legal sufficiency of evidence. Appellant’s testimony may have preserved a factual argument, but their testimony did not preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. AFFIRMED.