State v. J.T.C.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Commitment
  • Date Filed: 03-01-2017
  • Case #: A156283
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, C.J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J., dissenting
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 426.005(1)(e)(A), proving that a person is a “danger to others” due to mental illness requires proof of the likelihood of future violence based on more than a single, isolated incident.

Appellant appealed his civil commitment. Appellant argued that the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to others, because proof of violence produced at the commitment hearing was a single incident that did not tend to prove a likelihood of future violence. The Court found that State met its burden of showing that actual, future violence was highly likely based on the evidence in the record. The evidence showed a pattern of escalating paranoia followed by a violent outburst. The Court found that the evidence showed that future violence was highly likely if Appellant continued to remain at large, without taking medication. Affirmed.

Advanced Search