Matter of J.S., 2017 MT 28N

J.S., a widowed homeless man with a history of serious mental illness, had prior involuntary commitments to Montana State Hospital (MSH) in 2011–2012.
On November 9, 2015, J.S. presented to the Billings Clinic emergency department reportedly expressing suicidal and homicidal thoughts (e.g., wanting to kill security guards; thoughts of jumping in front of a train) and refusing medication.
The Clinic found him psychotic, hostile, threatening, suicidal, and homicidal and requested the Yellowstone County Attorney to file for involuntary commitment.
On November 10, 2015, the County filed a petition for involuntary commitment under § 53-21-126, MCA; a hearing was held November 16, 2015.
The District Court found J.S. suffered from multiple serious mental disorders and that the statutory requirement of an imminent threat of self-harm or harm to others was met; it ordered commitment to MSH for up to three months with forced medication and long-term treatment.
J.S. appealed, arguing the State failed to prove an imminent threat beyond a reasonable doubt and that his statements were too vague to satisfy § 53-21-126(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved an imminent threat under § 53-21-126(2) to justify involuntary commitment	J.S.: alleged statements were vague and insufficient to prove an imminent threat beyond a reasonable doubt	State: physician testimony and recent overt statements/behavior (refusal of meds, psychosis, threats) provide substantial evidence of an imminent threat	Court affirmed: findings supported by substantial credible evidence; imminent threat shown by recent overt statements and conduct; credibility resolved for physician testimony

In re C.V., 385 Mont. 429, 384 P.3d 1048 (standard of review for civil commitment findings)
In re S.L., 377 Mont. 223, 339 P.3d 73 (threat must be shown to presently exist and be imminent; law does not require certainty of future injury)
In re B.D., 381 Mont. 505, 362 P.3d 636 (application of imminent-threat requirement in commitment context)
In re E.A.L., 380 Mont. 129, 353 P.3d 1186 (district court discretion to assess witness credibility)