State v. M.D.M.

Appellant appealed a judgment for involuntary civil commitment under ORS 426.130, which determined that because of her mental disorder she was unable to provide for her basic needs as outlined in ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B). Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s holding of civil commitment due to insufficient evidence. On appeal, the Stated argued that appellant had failed to preserve her claim of error. Appellant argued that her testimony challenging the need for her commitment preserved her claim of error for sufficiency of the evidence because the purpose of the commitment hearing was to determine whether her mental disorder rendered her unable to care for herself. The “well-settled principle” that an issue generally must be raised in the trial court to be considered on appeal “applie[s] equally to civil commitment cases.” State v. K.J.B., 282 Or App 862, 867-68 (2016), aff’d, 362 Or 777 (2018); see also State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (2000). The Court reasoned that, although appellant’s testimony may have created a factual dispute relative to the need for commitment, the testimony alone did not constitute a legal challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court held that the claim of error was not preserved for appeal. Affirmed.