Opinion ID: 2364446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 17] The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Walter was mentally ill and because of [his] illness poses a likelihood of serious harm. See 34-B M.R.S.A. § 3864(6)(A)(1) (Pamph. 2003). When the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence, we review the trial court's findings to determine whether the fact-finder reasonably could have been persuaded that the required findings were proved to be highly probable. Spooner v. Spooner, 2004 ME 69, ¶ 30, 850 A.2d 354, 363. [¶ 18] Walter argues that without the testimony of the second examiner, the required findings of mental illness and likelihood of serious harm were not highly probable. However, the court could have been persuaded that it was highly probable that Walter was mentally ill and that his illness posed a likelihood of serious harm from the testimony and report of Dr. Leone alone. The additional testimony by Grace and Walter supported Dr. Leone's observations and expert opinion. The evidence was sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.