34 N.C. App. 228 | N.C. Ct. App. | 1977
Respondent does not except to that part of the order finding that he is mentally ill. Through counsel, however, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding that he was imminently dangerous to himself or others.
To support a recommitment order, the court is required to find “by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill. .. and imminently dangerous to himself or others, and in need of continued hospitalization.” G.S. 122-58.11(d). The court must record the facts which support its findings.
The thrust of respondent’s argument appears to be as follows: It is very difficult to predict potentially dangerous behavior. The Court should, therefore, require that any potentially dangerous behavior be evidenced by a recent overt act.
This Court has previously rejected respondent’s argument.
“The words ‘imminently dangerous’ simply mean that a person poses a danger to himself or others in the immediate future. An overt act may be clear, cogent and convincing evidence which will support a finding of imminent danger, but we cannot agree that there must be an overt act to establish imminent dangerousness.” In re Salem, 31 N.C. App. 57, 61, 228 S.E. 2d 649, 652 (1976).
There is ample evidence in the record to support the judge’s findings. It includes evidence of an unprovoked and potentially
The order is affirmed.
Affirmed.