State v. A.D.S. (In re A.D.S.), A145406

Decision Date14 August 2013
Docket NumberA145406,100363574.
Citation258 Or.App. 44,308 P.3d 365
PartiesIn the Matter of A.D.S., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. A.D.S., Appellant.
CourtOregon Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Rebecca Carter filed the brief for appellant.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.

WOLLHEIM, J.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment of involuntary civil commitment under ORS 426.130, arguing that the record does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that, because of a mental disorder, she is unable to provide for her basic needs and is not receiving such care as is necessary for health or safety, ORS 426.005(1)(e)(B). We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion and, accordingly, reverse.

Whether the evidence presented by the state is legally sufficient to support a civil commitment is a question of law. State v. D.M., 245 Or.App. 466, 468, 263 P.3d 1086 (2011). Neither party requested de novo review, and our review of the record does not demonstrate that this case is an exception to the general rule. SeeORS 19.415(3)(b); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (allowing de novo review only in exceptional cases). Accordingly, we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome.” Dept. of Human Services v. N.P., 257 Or.App. 633, 307 P.3d 444 (2013) (stating our standard of review for the legal sufficiency of evidence when we decline de novo review of the facts, in the context of a juvenile court's determination of jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c)). We are bound by the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by evidence in the record. ORS 19.415(3)(b); Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 487, 443 P.2d 621 (1968).

Since March 2010, appellant had been receiving intensive out-patient services from Central City Concern's Community Outreach Recovery Engagement team (CORE), includingprovisions of food and clothing. She was placed on a waiting list for a local shelter. She received food stamps and a monthly Social Security stipend for nearly seven hundred dollars, for which she used “Safety Net” as her payee.

On March 30, 2010, appellant was taken to the hospital by CORE staff members and placed on a mental health hold after an incident in which she stayed for “quite some time” in the shower at a CORE office, exhibited loud and erratic behavior-talking with an internal person she referred to as her husband, yelling, and pounding what presumably was the removable showerhead, and was unresponsive to caseworkers' requests to exit the shower. Appellant subsequently agreed to a two-week voluntary stay at the hospital, where she voluntarily took her medication and ate “fairly well” but was too disorganized to make a discharge plan. She also was observed screaming in her room by a nurse who believed that appellant was bothered by the voices in her head.

At the time of the commitment hearing, on April 15, 2010, appellant was 29 years of age, diagnosed with schizophrenia, and had spent most of the last 12 years in a structured mental health facility. She was asked to leave the most recent facility due to a relapse in her drug addiction after she used a small amount of medical marijuana and methamphetamine. Appellant had limited money management and daily living skills, presented herself in a sexually “provocative” manner, and both heard and responded to internal voices. She was not interested in any mental health medication or counseling.

At the commitment hearing, appellant's father told the court that he believed appellant heard voices all the time. Two examiners testified that appellant suffered from schizophrenia and was unable to provide for her basic needs. Appellant stated that she believed CORE could help her meet her needs and that she had a support network of friends, family, and members of her church. She identified a number of places she may be able to stay if she were released. CORE staff affirmed that they would continue to help and provide services for appellant and would help her to find immediate shelter if she were released.

The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that appellant suffered from a mental disorder and was unable to provide for basic personal needs and was not receiving such care as is necessary for health and safety. The court further determined that appellant was unwilling, unable, or unlikely to participate in treatment on a voluntary basis, and that a conditional release was either unavailable or not in appellant's best interest.

On appeal, appellant assigns error to the trial court's determination that she could not provide for her basic needs, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that she was unable to obtain some service or commodity necessary to sustain her life.

ORS 426.130(1)(b)(C) provides that, if the court determines after a commitment hearing that, based on clear and convincing evidence, a person is mentally ill, then the court may order commitment of the individual to the Oregon Health Authority for treatment. ORS 426.005(1)(e) defines “mentally ill” as

“a person who, because of a mental disorder, is one or more of the following:

(A) Dangerous to self or others.

(B) Unable to provide for basic personal needs and is not receiving such care as is necessary for health or safety.”

Thus, ORS 426.005 precludes a court from committing a person on the basis of a mental disorder alone.” State v. S.D.M., 198 Or.App. 153, 161, 107 P.3d 683 (2005).

The clear and convincing evidence standard imposes a “heavy burden” on the state that is “the product of a fundamental recognition of the priority of preserving personal liberties.” State v. R.A., 209 Or.App. 647, 652, 149 P.3d 289 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). It requires the state to “produce evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness and that makes the facts at issue highly probable.” State v. D.A.H., 241 Or.App. 391, 395, 250 P.3d 423 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider the evidence in the record under that standard to determine whether it was legally sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that appellant was unable to provide for her basic personal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. S. R. J. (In re S. R. J.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 19 Octubre 2016
    ...K. G. , 267 Or.App. 319, 320–21, 340 P.3d 735 (2014) (emphasizing the need for extraordinarily persuasive evidence); State v. A. D. S. , 258 Or.App. 44, 47, 308 P.3d 365 (2013) (discussing how the state bears of heavy burden in civil commitment cases, that the evidence must be "extraordinar......
  • State v. C.C. (In re C.C.), A146999
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 9 Octubre 2013
    ...419B.100(1)(c)). “We are bound by the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by evidence in the record.” State v. A.D.S., 258 Or.App. 44, 45, 308 P.3d 365 (2013) (citing ORS 19.415(3)(b)). Consistently with the standard of review, the record discloses the following facts that are......
  • White v. Vogt
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 14 Agosto 2013
    ...judgment is “a judgment that may be rendered after a general judgment pursuant to a legal authority” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, [308 P.3d 365]we must dismiss the appeal from the supplemental judgment. Appeal from supplemental judgment dismissed; otherwise affirmed.--------Notes: 1. Def......
  • State v. M. A. E. (In re M. A. E.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 5 Septiembre 2019
    ...185, 387 P.3d 443 (2016) (emphasis added; brackets in S. P. ; internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see State v. A. D. S. , 258 Or. App. 44, 48, 308 P.3d 365 (2013) (interpreting "necessary for health and safety" as "a likelihood that the person probably would not survive in the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT