Court Opinion

ID: 9582901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:32:39.921893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:43.899684
License: Public Domain

DEITS, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority’s holding that appellant is a “mentally ill person,” because she has a mental disorder and is unable to provide for her basic personal needs. ORS 426.005(2). However, I disagree with its conclusion that appellant is not a danger to others.
To support a finding that appellant poses a danger to others, the record must contain evidence that forms the “foundation for a prediction of future dangerousness.” State v. Lucas, 31 Or App 947, 950, 571 P2d 1275 (1977). There clearly is such evidence here. As the majority acknowledges, appellant’s case manager “had far greater experience with appellant’s problems than did the medical examiners.” The case manager testified that appellant’s behavior may be controlled with medication but that she “has a habit of going off her meds and getting psychotic” and that she is currently “hostile and rather dangerous.” The case manager also testified that appellant overdoses on one of her prescriptions in order to “get high.”
In addition to the case worker’s testimony, the record includes a police report describing an incident in which appellant threatened residents of her apartment complex and tried to attack the apartment manager with scissors.1 The majority holds that the evidence of appellant’s attack on the apartment manager is “inconclusive.” I disagree. Even the medical examiners who recommended against appellant’s commitment acknowledged that the incident occurred and that it showed that appellant was potentially dangerous to others:
“THE COURT: Would you concede, though, that threatening somebody with a pair of scissors is an act of dangerousness?
*374“MR. MOHLER: Yes, obviously. And probably she was much more psychotic when she did that. It was two weeks ago unmedicated. Her case manager hasn’t spoken to her in a week. She’s been on medication in two weeks and there’s a big change, obviously.”
In view of the record, the only possible basis on which to conclude that appellant is not dangerous to others is to conclude that her medication has stabilized her so that she can control her behavior. I do not think that the record supports that conclusion. As the majority says, “[a]ppellant has a history of mental illness, a habit of failing or refusing to take needed medication, which results in hostile, dangerous behavior, and a tendency to abuse drugs when they are administered without appropriate supervision.” 111 Or App at 372.1 believe that appellant poses a danger to others and that her history of abusing or neglecting her medication indicates that she remains one. I would not vacate that portion of the trial court’s order that found appellant to be a danger to others.

 The majority acknowledges that there was “an altercation between appellant and her apartment owner” but concludes that “the nature of the altercation is not clear from the record.” 111 Or App at 371. It also notes that the police report “was never offered or admitted in evidence.” However, the police report is included in State’s Exhibit 1, which was admitted at the beginning of the proceeding.