State v. V. H.

                                83

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
           Submitted November 9, affirmed December 7, 2022


                  In the Matter of V. H.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                            v.
                          V. H.,
                        Appellant.
            Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   21CC05709; A177349

   Eric A. Lentz, Judge.
    Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   EGAN, J.
   Affirmed.
84                                                               State v. V. H.

           EGAN, J.
        In this civil commitment case, appellant seeks
reversal of a judgment involuntarily committing her to the
custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to
exceed 180 days. She argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that, at the time of the hearing, she had a
mental disorder that caused her to be dangerous to herself.
See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A);1 ORS 426.130.2 Because the record
was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion,
we affirm.
         Appellant does not request de novo review, nor is
this an exceptional case warranting such review. See ORAP
5.40(8)(c) (this court will exercise its discretion to try the
cause anew on the record only in exceptional cases). “[W]e
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. T. Y., 

, 

 (2017)
(quoting State v. M. A., 

, 

(2016)). Additionally, this court is “bound by the trial court’s
findings of historical fact that are supported by any evidence
in the record.” State v. J. D. S., 

, 

 (2011). In light of the clear and convincing standard of
proof required by ORS 426.130(1), “the question for us as the
reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder ‘could have
found’ that it was highly probable that appellant presented
a danger to [herself].” State v. M. J. F., 

,

 (2020).

    1
      ORS 426.005(1)(f) defines “person with mental illness” as “a person who,
because of a mental disorder, is one or more of the following: (A) Dangerous to self
or others.”
    2
      ORS 426.130(1) provides, as relevant here:
    “After hearing all of the evidence, and reviewing the findings of the examiners, the court shall determine whether the person has a mental illness and is
    in need of treatment. If, in the opinion of the court, the person:
         “(a) Is a person with mental illness based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court:
         “…
         “(C) May order commitment of the person with mental illness to the
    Oregon Health Authority for treatment[.]”
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2022)                 85

          In the case at hand, the record is replete with evidence that appellant suffers from a mental disorder that
“would cause … her to engage in behavior that is likely
to result in physical harm to … herself in the near term.”
State v. R. E., 

, 

 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the threatened
harm was actual serious physical harm. State v. B. B., 

, 

 (2010) (noting “our cases have
established that the threatened harm must, at minimum,
involve actual physical harm, and that the physical harm
must be serious” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). And although no physical harm had yet come to
appellant because of her fire-setting activities or her spreading of lighter fluid on the floors of her husband’s house, those
activities created a danger to her. State v. M. T., 

, 

 (2021) (noting the state does not need
to “wait until serious physical harm actually occurs before
a person may be considered a danger to herself”). Moreover,
the evidence allowed for a finding—which the trial court
expressly made—that appellant lacked insight about her
conduct.
          Thus, resolving all inferences in favor of the trial
court’s disposition, we conclude that this record is legally
sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that it
is highly probable that appellant presents a danger to herself for purposes of ORS 426.130.
         Affirmed.