State v. L. D. (In re L. D.)

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: A172948
• Citation: 484 P.3d 1100,310 Or.App. 347
• Parties: In the MATTER OF L. D., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. State of Oregon, Respondent, v. L. D., Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

310 Or.App. 347

484 P.3d 1100

In the MATTER OF L. D., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

State of Oregon, Respondent,

v.L. D., Appellant.

A172948

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted September 28, 2020.

March 31, 2021

Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

KAMINS, J.

Appellant appeals a judgment involuntarily committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days. Because the record was legally sufficient to allow a rational factfinder to conclude that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that makes her a danger to herself, we affirm.

Absent de novo review, "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." State v. M. J. F ., 306 Or. App. 544, 545, 473 P.3d 1141 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]hether the evidence is sufficient to support a determination that appellant is a danger to [self] is a question we review as a matter of law." Id . at 546, 473 P.3d 1141 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellant, who has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder

, bipolar type, suffered from suicidal ideations, including "command hallucinations" telling her to run into traffic and kill herself. Her medical records document a "consistent pattern" of acting impulsively in response to these delusions, including instances of running into traffic. Approximately one month before the hospitalization leading to this commitment hearing, appellant ran into traffic again. On that day she told her provider: "I want to kill myself. I want to die. I hate my life. I'm going to run into traffic." At the hearing, when the court asked her why she ran into traffic, she responded that she "was trying to kill [her]self, of course."

The trial court concluded that appellant was a person with a mental illness and presented a danger to herself:

"The reason for that is based on the statements that she made initially at the outset of this hearing where she did in fact endorse a desire to kill herself. And, the doctor testified that she had also made those statements here in the hospital and that along with those statements, [appellant] stated that she would run into traffic.

"This may be, in some cases, regarded as just *** expressing her anguish or upset with her family, but she has done it in the past, which lends credence to the fact that she in fact would do it again if the circumstances were so disorienting to her."

ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) defines a "[p]erson with mental illness" as a person who, "because of a mental disorder," is "[d]angerous to self or others." A person is dangerous to herself if her mental disorder puts her at a nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm or death in the near future. State v. S. R. J ., 281 Or. App. 741, 749, 386 P.3d 99 (2016). Accepting all inferences in favor of the trial court's decision, we must determine whether a rational factfinder could conclude by clear and convincing evidence—that is, that it is "highly probable"—that appellant presents a danger to herself because of a mental disorder. M. J. F ., 306 Or. App. at 548, 473 P.3d 1141.

This record is sufficient to permit the trial court's conclusion that, at the time of the hearing, appellant posed a danger to herself. Appellant expressed her desire to die by suicide in the days leading up to her hospitalization and while in the hospital. She communicated a specific plan to take her own life: to run into traffic. Approximately one month before her most recent hospitalization, she did run into traffic and confirmed that she did so in an effort to die by suicide.

Because appellant advocated a desire to take her own life and recently attempted to do so, the trial court's finding that she posed a danger to herself was well-supported by the record. See id . at 547, 473 P.3d 1141 (recognizing the "principle" that a "threat to commit suicide, coupled with a recent attempt to enact that threat through overt action" is sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to conclude appellant presents a danger to self).

Appellant argues...