State v. D.L.

For purposes of ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) multiple violent acts or a violent act coupled with additional threats will demonstrate that a person is highly likely to engage in future violence; however, “[a]cts of violence are not required to establish that a person is dangerous; verbal threats may be sufficient, if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.” State v. J. D., 315 Or App 316, 321, 499 P3d 113 (2021) (citing J. G., 302 Or App at 101 n 3).

Appellant appealed a judgment of involuntary commission to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s decision, arguing that the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous to other due to a mental disorder under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). On appeal, Appellant argued that the word ‘dangerous’ and the phrase ‘to others’ must be defined in order to show that the ‘danger’ is directly caused by the mental disorder in question. In response, the State argued that Appellant’s conduct suffices to prove clear and convincing evidence that Appellant presented a danger to others, as the assault in question was not an isolated incident. For purposes of ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) multiple violent acts or a violent act coupled with additional threats will demonstrate that a person is highly likely to engage in future violence; however, “[a]cts of violence are not required to establish that a person is dangerous; verbal threats may be sufficient, if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.” State v. J. D., 315 Or App 316, 321, 499 P3d 113 (2021) (citing J. G., 302 Or App at 101 n 3). As such, the Court determined that the evidence satisfied the clear and convincing burden. Affirmed.