263 P.3d 1017
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant J.D.S. seeks reversal of a commitment as a mentally ill person for up to 180 days (ORS 426.130).
- Appellant suffers from bipolar disorder and was in a manic, decompensated state, refusing medication.
- Past May 2008 episode: jumped from a two-story building due to auditory hallucinations, causing serious spinal injuries.
- A second episode near the hearing involved dangerous driving and loss of steering control, with intervening actions by his brother Robert.
- Psychiatrist Sanchez testified appellant’s condition created a danger to self and others and that he would not cooperate with voluntary treatment.
- Trial court concluded appellant had a mental disorder, was a danger to self and others, and would not benefit from voluntary treatment, ordering 180-day commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports danger to self | J.D.S. argues no clear and convincing proof of danger to self. | State contends evidence shows danger to self in near term due to disorder and decompensation. | Yes; evidence sufficient to support danger to self. |
| Standard of review and discretion in de novo review | Appellant asks for de novo review of factual findings. | State urges deference to trial findings and no exceptional case for de novo review. | We decline de novo review; uphold trial findings as supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. B. B., 240 Or.App. 75 (2010) (affirmatively reviews sufficiency where no express findings; supports light favorable view of evidence)
- State v. D.R., 239 Or.App. 576 (2010) (sufficiency of evidence for danger to self/others; rational trier of fact standard)
- Gritzbaugh Main Street Prop. v. Greyhound Lines, 205 Or.App. 640 (2006) (defines clear and convincing standard in context of remedial contempt)
- Oberg v. Honda Motor Co., 320 Or. 544 (1995) (reviewing a damages award; how to assess clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (1994) (criminal standard: review evidence in light favor of the state for sufficiency)
- Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of Bronson, 122 Or.App. 452 (1993) (policy on evaluating whether evidence could support a finding)
- State v. Olsen, 208 Or.App. 686 (2006) (danger to self requires near-term potential for physical harm)
- State v. North, 189 Or.App. 518 (2003) (harm must be serious physical harm; near-term assessment)