State v. T. A.

456                 October 22, 2025                No. 930

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
   pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
        except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                STATE OF OREGON

                  In the Matter of T. A.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                            v.
                          T. A.,
                        Appellant.
            Multnomah County Circuit Court
                  24CC05050; A185399

  Erin E. Kirkwood, Judge.
  Submitted September 22, 2025.
   Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)             457

        PER CURIAM
        Appellant appeals a judgment of civil commitment.
The trial court ordered that appellant be committed to the
custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to
exceed 180 days, based on appellant being a “person with
mental illness.” ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). Specifically, appellant
was found to be a danger to self as a result of a mental disorder. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A).
         To meet the legal standard for a danger-to-self commitment, the state must prove that a person has a mental
disorder that “ ‘would cause him or her to engage in behavior
that is likely to result in physical harm to himself or herself in the near term.’ ” State v. M. T., 

,

 (2021) (quoting State v. B. B., 

, 

 (2010)). “The threat of physical harm must
be ‘serious’—that is, it must be ‘life-threatening’ or involve
some ‘inherently dangerous’ activity.” 

 (quoting B. B., 

). It also “must be more than speculative”—
that is, “the evidence of such a threat must be particularized, demonstrating a highly probable risk of harm in the
near future.” 

 (internal quotation marks omitted). And the
danger must be caused by the mental disorder, not merely
coincide with it. State v. S. G., 

, 

 (2025).
         The trial court found that legal standard to be met
here. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence as a matter of law. Our task, therefore, is to view
the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support
civil commitment. State v. L. R., 

, 

 (2017). Whether it was legally sufficient is a question of law. State v. A. D. S., 

, 

 (2013). “Ultimately, in view of the clear-and-convincingevidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment
proceedings, the question for us as the reviewing court is
whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was
highly probable that appellant was a danger to herself” as a
result of a mental disorder. State v. S. A. R., 

, 

 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
458                                          State v. T. A.

         Having reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the evidence was legally
sufficient for civil commitment based on danger to self.
Accordingly, we affirm.
        Affirmed.