State v. DR, 239 Or. App. 576

Appellant D.R. was adjudicated mentally ill and committed to the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 426.130(1)(b)(C).
The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of danger to self due to a mental disorder (bipolar) and inability to engage in voluntary treatment.
On the day of admission, appellant exhibited disorganized, distractible behavior, inconsistent with taking medications, and dangerous driving conduct.
There was testimony that appellant crossed a street with head down, ran red lights/stop signs, and exhibited impulsive, unsafe-driving behavior.
Two examiners diagnosed bipolar disorder; one examiner supported commitment, explaining lack of insight and impaired judgment in driving safety.
The court concluded the danger to self was present and that commitment should be for up to 60 days; appellant appealed challenging the danger-to-self finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was appellant a danger to herself under ORS 426.005(1)(e)?	D.R. had a mental disorder causing self-harm risk and unsafe behavior; pattern of dangerous conduct supported by evidence.	No proven nexus between disorder and driving; insufficient likelihood of future harm.	Yes; evidence supports danger to self by a rational trier of fact.
Did the State prove a nexus between mental disorder and driving danger?	Disorder impaired judgment and focus, directly contributing to dangerous driving on the day.	No explicit causal link shown between disorder and day-of-driving incidents.	Sufficient nexus shown; conduct tied to disorder and future risk.
Was there a sufficient pattern or likelihood of future danger to justify commitment?	Past episodes and current functioning indicated continued risk absent intervention.	Isolated day of risky conduct cannot establish ongoing danger.	Combined past and present deficiencies demonstrated near-term danger to self.
Was the decision to commit proper given voluntary-treatment feasibility?	Defendant cannot reliably consent or participate in voluntary treatment due to impairment.	Appellant was amenable to voluntary treatment; commitment should be avoided if possible.	Not dispositive; evidence supported commitment for danger to self; voluntary-treatment feasibility not controlling.

State v. Lott, 202 Or. App. 329, 122 P.3d 97 (2005) (establishes evidentiary standards for predicting future dangerousness)
State v. Olsen, 208 Or. App. 686, 145 P.3d 350 (2006) (past acts require pattern and continuation to prove danger to self)
State v. Simon, 180 Or. App. 255, 42 P.3d 374 (2002) (predicting future dangerousness linked to mental illness is complex)
State v. Roberts, 183 Or. App. 520, 52 P.3d 1123 (2002) (mere wandering or nonharmful past conduct not sufficient alone)
State v. Siebold, 100 Or. App. 365, 786 P.2d 219 (1990) (distraction leading to a single accident insufficient for danger to self)
State v. Hambleton, 202 Or. App. 526, 123 P.3d 370 (2005) (isolated risky acts without prior pattern unlikely to show danger)
State v. Fletcher, 60 Or. App. 623, 654 P.2d 1121 (1982) (driving misconduct alone may be insufficient without more)
State v. M. R., 225 Or. App. 569, 202 P.3d 221 (2009) (contextual standard for evaluating dangerousness in self)