Opinion ID: 1441398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 21] We also reject Marcial O.'s challenge to the trial court's findings pursuant to 34-B M.R.S.A. § 3864(6)(A) (Supp.1998) that (1) his recent actions and behavior demonstrated a likelihood of serious harm, and (2) involuntary inpatient commitment was the least restrictive alternative for treatment. A commitment order is reviewed on questions of law, and the District Court's findings of fact are not set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. See 34-B M.R.S.A. § 3864(11)(A)-(B) (1988). [¶ 22] Clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the court's findings. The court's determination that the hospital established the likelihood of serious harm is supported by unanimous expert opinions that Marcial O. could not live safely independently and needed supervised placement and testimony that he experienced auditory hallucinations to which he responded despite five years of inpatient hospitalization. The decision is also supported by statements that he did not intend to continue to take his medications if released, testimony that failure to take his medications would cause his mental condition to deteriorate, and statements that he did not believe that he needed to cooperate with a community service provider. [¶ 23] The evidence also supports the court's conclusion that inpatient treatment was the least restrictive means of treatment available. The testimony of the BMHI doctors and staff established that Marcial O. was not committed to the idea of supervised living and had rejected an earlier proposed placement. Even the doctor he selected testified that his expressions on the subject of supervised living during his examination were equivocal, ranging from firm opposition to gradual acceptance.