State v. Santana, 2011 Ohio 3685

Defendant Santana was found not guilty by reason of insanity after a bench trial for kidnapping with sexual motivation, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, domestic violence, and resisting arrest.
A civil commitment hearing was held to determine if he is a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order and if the least restrictive means is a hospital operated by Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare.
The trial court relied on expert testimony that, under the totality of circumstances, Santana should be civilly committed despite Santana’s denial of mental illness.
Santana has a long history of psychiatric illness, including chronic paranoid schizophrenia, noncompliance with medications, and ongoing delusions.
The court found Santana subject to hospitalization and ordered commitment in the least restrictive hospital setting.
Santana appealed alleging lack of clear and convincing evidence of present risk of harm and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of present mental illness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence shows substantial risk of harm	Santana represents ongoing risk due to delusions	Santana argues no present intent to harm and lack of current risk	Yes; court found substantial risk of harm present.
Whether there is present mental illness justifying hospitalization	Santana is chronically ill with delusions needing treatment	Santana denies mental illness and questions present condition	Yes; court held Santana mentally ill and in need of hospitalization.

In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1984) (factors for determining commitment and risk; remission considerations)
C.E. Morris v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for reviewing clear and convincing findings)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (syllabus standards for reviewing factual findings)