State v. J.D.

Under State v. J.G., 302 Or App 97 (2020) and State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 (1993), a person can be found “dangerous to others” for purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) based on verbal threats without acts of violence “if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.”

J.D. appealed a 180-day civil commitment to Oregon Health Authority custody. J.D. assigned error to the trial court’s determination that his mental disorder made him dangerous to himself or others. On appeal, J.D. argued that he has no history of actual violence and that mere verbal threats cannot sustain a mental commitment. Under State v. J.G., 302 Or App 97 (2020) and State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 (1993), a person can be found “dangerous to others” for purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) based on verbal threats without acts of violence “if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.” Here, the Court found that the opinions of three witnesses and two examiners predicting future violent behavior, based on J.D.’s escalating aggressiveness, belligerence, and verbal threats, seeking of ammunition at a gun show, potential to obtain weapons, and “several threats to kill law enforcement personnel” indicated that J.D. was taking steps to carry out his threatened behavior. The Court found that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence “that the requisite degree of danger to others had been established.” Affirmed.