In the Matter of T. Y., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness.
T. Y., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
Submitted March 21, 2017
Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CC02695; A162258 Connie L.
Isgro, Judge pro tempore.
DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., fled the brief for
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor
General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General,
fled the brief for respondent.
Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Flynn,
Judge pro tempore.
Summary: Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involuntarily
committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division
based on a finding that, because of a mental disorder,
appellant was a danger to himself. Appellant contends that
the state failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he was a danger to himself.
The evidence presented does not establish that there was a
particularized and highly probable threat to appellant's
safe survival as a result of his mental disorder.
Accordingly, the evidence is legally insufficient to
establish that appellant is a danger to himself and the trial
court erred in committing him.
SERCOMBE, P. J.
seeks reversal of a judgment involuntarily committing him to
the custody of the Mental Health Division based on a finding
that, because of a mental disorder, appellant was a danger to
himself. See ORS 426.005(1)(f); ORS 426.130.
Appellant contends that the state failed to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to
himself. As explained below, we agree and,
review 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. M.
A.. 276 Or.App. 624, 625, 371 P.3d 495 (2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, the parties have not
requested de novo review and, in any event, it is
not a case in which we would conclude that de novo
review is warranted. See ORAP 5.40(8). Accordingly,
we state the facts in accordance with the trial court's
express and implied findings and review the trial court's
conclusion that the requirements for commitment were
satisfied to determine if it is supported by legally
sufficient evidence. M. A., 276 Or.App. at 625.
has a psychotic disorder that causes him to experience
auditory command hallucinations. In April 2016, the voices
that he hears instructed appellant to kill himself. As
appellant saw it, those voices wanted him to believe that he
was evil and to kill himself; however, "it was really
murder" that would be "perceived as a
suicide." He believed that his GPS unit was also
"directing [him] to suicide." Appellant sent text
messages to his parents stating that he was going to kill
himself and drove to a bridge in Washington. He got out of
his car, walked to the edge of the bridge, and looked over it
for 30 to 45 seconds. Deciding he did not want to die and
that he had gone too far, appellant called a suicide hotline
for help and, ultimately, with his parents'
encouragement, sought help at a local hospital.
before his hospitalization, appellant was suffering from an
internal hemorrhoid that he believed was "nano-induced
anal probing." According to appellant, the
"probing" was one of the reasons he had gone to the
bridge to kill himself. At the hospital, appellant received
treatment for the hemorrhoid. At the hearing, appellant
testified that, although he believed that the hemorrhoid had
"nothing to do with the nano-induced anal probing,
" he nonetheless had "stopped being probed."
testified that the voices had also tried to kill him and make
it look like suicide a couple of times in the past and,
according to appellant's father, appellant had talked
about suicide in emails in the months leading up to the
incident in April. However, appellant had not attempted
suicide in the past and, according to the doctor that had
been treating him in the hospital, did not have ongoing
suicidal ideation. He did not suffer from depression and his
disorder was not one of "chronic suicidally."
Indeed, appellant testified that he wants to live. He stated
that he does not want to hurt or kill himself and has no
plans to do so, and, if the voices told him to jump off a
bridge again, he would not do it.
to appellant, some of the voices are "on [his]
side" and others are not, and it can sometimes be
difficult to tell "friend" from "foe."
The voices are "pretty stubborn, " and appellant
believes that other people would not be able to handle them
as he does. He explained that he had "been able to deal
with the voices for going on 13 years now" but that it
could "get pretty tough." Appellant has a history
of impulsive behavior. On one occasion, without warning, he
jumped up out of bed and grabbed his father. However,
appellant did not injure his father and that was the only
occasion on which he had acted in that way. Most recently,
the voices had instructed ...