State v. K.J.B. (In re K.J.B.)
416 P.3d 291
Or.2018Background
- Petitioner, with long-standing schizoaffective disorder and intermittent homelessness, was arrested and held in county jail; conduct in jail and a recent fire led to a notice of mental illness and a civil commitment hearing.
- At the hearing the State sought commitment on three statutory grounds: dangerous to self, dangerous to others, and unable to provide for basic personal needs.
- Witnesses (precommitment investigator, case manager, jail behavioral-health specialist, probation officer) described psychosis, medication refusal, disorganized behavior, some weight loss, and incidents (urinating on belongings, plugging toilet); none offered evidence of an imminent release date.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was mentally ill and unable to meet basic needs (among other grounds) and ordered commitment up to 180 days.
- On appeal petitioner argued insufficiency of evidence for all grounds and advanced, for the first time, a Jensen-based contention that being in custody creates a presumption of adequate care and the State must prove an impending release date to support a basic-needs commitment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on basic-needs ground but held petitioner had not preserved the Jensen argument; the Supreme Court denied dismissal as moot and affirmed on preservation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Commitment expired; nevertheless collateral consequences (cost liability, stigma) keep the case live | Commitment term expired so appeal is moot | Not moot: stigma and other collateral consequences may persist; State did not meet its burden to show no collateral consequence |
| Preservation of Jensen-based rule | Trial counsel’s general sufficiency objection preserved argument that when detainee is incarcerated State must prove release date (Jensen) | Argument not preserved; counsel never cited Jensen or asked court to presume care in custody or require proof of release date | Not preserved: general insufficiency objection did not fairly apprise court of Jensen-specific claim; appellate review declined |
| Substantive rule re: basic-needs commitment for incarcerated persons | (If preserved) State must prove release is imminent or otherwise rebut presumption that custody provides adequate care | State contended no such preservation; also argued evidence supported commitment on basic-needs facts shown | Not reached on merits: court affirmed commitment based on trial-court findings about petitioner’s inability to meet basic needs because preservation failure barred Jensen challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jensen, 141 Or. App. 391 (Court of Appeals) (held that when respondent is in custody there is a presumption of adequate care absent proof of impending release)
- Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402 (1993) (party seeking dismissal for mootness bears burden to show absence or insufficiency of collateral consequences)
- State v. Van Tassel, 5 Or. App. 376 (1971) (Court of Appeals: stigma from involuntary civil commitment can prevent mootness)
- State v. Serrano, 355 Or. 172 (2014) (preservation principle: a trial‑level argument focusing on one theory does not preserve a different theory raised on appeal)