State v. K. M.

An involuntary civil commitment requires more than the mere diagnosis of a mental disorder or threats to others. State v. C. H., 306 Or App 63, 67, 473 P3d 60 (2020). The State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that actual future violence is highly likely.” State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 629, 371 P3d 495 (2016).

Petitioner appealed “a judgment involuntarily committing her to” the Mental Health Division for 180 days and “prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms.”  On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred when it determined that she posed “a danger to others because of a mental disorder.”  In response, the State claimed that commitment was justified because Petitioner posed a danger to others.  An involuntary civil commitment requires more than the mere diagnosis of a mental disorder or threats to others.  State v. C. H., 306 Or App 63, 67, 473 P3d 60 (2020).  The State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that actual future violence is highly likely.”  State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 629, 371 P3d 495 (2016).  The Court found that, although Petitioner’s communications were vulgar and contained “vague and nonspecific” threats, there was no evidence Petitioner “engaged in physical violence with anyone.”  Thus, the Court held that the record was insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Petitioner presented “a danger of future violence to others because of her mental disorder.”  Reversed.