Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re L.R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

February 8, 2017

In the Matter of L. R., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness.
v.
L. R, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,

          Submitted August 26, 2015

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 140362820; A156780 Connie L. Isgro, Judge pro tempore.

          Garrett A. Richardson and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Matthew J. Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

         Case Summary: Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment that ordered his involuntary civil commitment, arguing that the record does not establish that he was a danger to others because of a mental disorder. Held: Appellant's actions- yelling, making broad threats, menacing posturing, and destruction of objects- are insuffcient to support a conclusion that appellant is highly likely to engage in actual future violence toward people.

         Reversed.

          EGAN, J.

         Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment that ordered his involuntary commitment to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). Appellant contends that the record does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to others because of a mental disorder. See ORS 426.130; former ORS 426.005(1)(e)(A) (2013), renumbered as ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) (2015).[1] We agree that the evidence in the record is not legally sufficient to conclude that appellant was a danger to others. Accordingly, we reverse.

         When reviewing a challenge to a civil commitment judgment, unless we exercise our discretion to review the matter de novo, "we 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. R. L. W.. 267 Or.App. 725, 728, 341 P.3d 845 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither party has asked us to review the matter de novo, and we decline to do so. See ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (providing that the court will exercise its discretion to review de novo "only in exceptional cases").

         Before the events at issue here, appellant, a 24-year-old African-American man, had showed no signs of having a mental disorder. Shortly before these events, appellant's relationship with his girlfriend, with whom he had been living, had ended, and he had lost his job at Portland International Airport. On March 12, 2014, Officer Ko, on duty at the airport, was doing routine rounds of the terminal and found appellant and another man yelling at each other. Appellant was standing behind a Sky Cap podium yelling and swearing at the other man, an unknown traveler, who was backing away from appellant. Appellant did not pursue the man but instead took his own personal possessions and threw them onto the podium. Ko could not understand what appellant was yelling about, but he did recall appellant claiming that he was a gang member and threatening that "he was gonna have us all killed" by the gang.

         While facing Ko, appellant took off his jacket and shirt, "clench[ed] his fists and drop[ped] his arms in front of him and just kind of flex[ed] *** and tense[d] up his muscles." Another officer arrived and appellant walked away from his belongings and Ko. Appellant flexed his muscles at the other officer, and that officer drew his Taser and ordered appellant to the ground. Appellant complied and was arrested for disorderly conduct.

         Appellant was calm after he was arrested. He was issued a 90-day exclusion from the airport and taken to jail. Hours later, after appellant was released, he returned to the airport, where he was arrested for trespassing. In jail, appellant was evaluated by mental health staff and transported to Emanuel Hospital where he was further evaluated and given medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

         On March 13, the investigator who would later write the precommitment investigation report met with appellant at the hospital. According to that report, appellant took his medication while at the hospital and was compliant with the staff directions even when he became upset. Although appellant demanded to be released, he did not threaten the staff and stated that he had no intentions of harming anyone. When he was released, he stayed with his older cousin, whom he had always called his aunt. He later confirmed that he had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.