State v. M. T. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 688                December 20, 2023                No. 671
    This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
    except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
    STATE OF OREGON
    In the Matter of M. T.,
    a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
    STATE OF OREGON,
    Respondent,
    v.
    M. T.,
    Appellant.
    Multnomah County Circuit Court
    22CC05796; A179799
    Monica M. Herranz, Judge.
    Submitted November 6, 2023.
    Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
    filed the brief for appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
    Solicitor General, and Dustin Buehler, Assistant Attorney
    General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
    Kamins, Judge.
    EGAN, J.
    Affirmed.
    Nonprecedential Memo Op: 
    329 Or App 688
     (2023)            689
    EGAN, J.
    Appellant appeals a judgment involuntarily commit-
    ting her to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days
    and an order prohibiting her from possessing firearms on the
    basis that appellant has a mental disorder that makes her a
    danger to herself and unable to provide for her basic needs.
    ORS 426.130; ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B).
    In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the
    trial court erred when it admitted and considered a precom-
    mitment investigation report without the investigator who
    authored the report being present at the hearing. In her sec-
    ond and third assignments of error, appellant argues that
    the record is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding
    that, because of her mental disorder, she was a danger to
    herself and unable to provide for her basic personal needs.
    In her fourth assignment of error, appellant argues that
    the trial court erred by ordering the firearm prohibition,
    because it is contrary to the court’s announced findings at
    the hearing. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
    In her first assignment of error, appellant argues
    that, pursuant to ORS 426.095(4)(d)(C), the court erred
    when it admitted and considered the investigation report
    although the investigator available for cross-examination
    was not the same investigator who authored the report.
    Assuming without deciding that this was error, we conclude
    that any error was harmless. See State v. Davis, 
    336 Or 19
    ,
    33, 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (Under Article VII (Amended), sec-
    tion 3, of the Oregon Constitution, we must affirm the judg-
    ment below if we determine that there is “little likelihood
    that the error affected the verdict”). Although the examiner
    and the trial court referenced the report when questioning
    appellant, notably, the trial court’s ultimate findings did not
    rely on information from the investigation report, but rather
    the trial court relied on the testimony that was given at the
    hearing—including appellant’s own testimony that she had
    very recently been assaulted and raped. Cf. State v. M. A. B.,
    
    212 Or App 400
    , 404-05, 157 P3d 1256 (2007) (reversing
    commitment when the trial court relied on the inadmissible
    investigation report, despite the appellant’s contrary testi-
    mony). Because the trial court’s findings are supported by
    690                                               State v. M. T.
    testimony given during the hearing, and appellant’s visible
    injuries at the time of the hearing, there is little likelihood
    that the inadmissible report affected the trial court’s find-
    ing that, because of appellant’s mental disorder, she would
    be at risk of serious harm in the near future.
    In her second and third assignments of error, appel-
    lant concedes that she has a mental disorder, but she argues
    that the evidence is insufficient to establish that she is a
    danger to herself or unable to provide for her basic needs.
    In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, “we view the evidence,
    as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative
    inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court’s dis-
    position and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was
    legally sufficient to permit that outcome.” State v. M. J. F.,
    
    306 Or App 544
    , 545, 473 P3d 1141 (2020) (internal quo-
    tation marks omitted). Reviewing under those standards,
    we conclude that the record was legally sufficient to allow a
    rational factfinder to conclude that appellant suffered from
    a mental disorder that makes her a danger to herself and
    unable to provide for her basic needs.
    A person is a danger to self if “the person’s mental
    disorder would cause him or her to engage in behavior that
    is likely to result in physical harm to self in the near term.”
    State v. S. S., 
    309 Or App 131
    , 133, 480 P3d 321 (2021) (quot-
    ing State v. B. B., 
    240 Or App 75
    , 82, 245 P3d 697 (2010)
    (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). Appellant
    argues that the trial court’s concern that, if released, appel-
    lant would be at a substantial risk of assault based on her
    ongoing refusal to wear clothing is speculative and does not
    support commitment. With respect to the inherent risk of
    a woman with a mental disorder being naked in public, we
    have determined that “a generalized concern that public
    nudity, combined with outward manifestations of mental
    illness, [that] would leave appellant vulnerable” to assault
    “does not meet the legal standard for involuntary civil com-
    mitment.” State v. M. B., 
    300 Or App 522
    , 529, 452 P3d 1006
    (2019) (reversing commitment where the appellant engaged
    in an instance of public nudity, but no one at the appellant’s
    hearing identified a specific threat to appellant’s well-being).
    In contrast, when there is evidence that an appellant has
    Nonprecedential Memo Op: 
    329 Or App 688
     (2023)              691
    been recently assaulted, “the serious risk of physical harm
    to appellant in the near future is not speculative.” State v.
    N. S., 
    306 Or App 140
    , 147, 472 P3d 818 (2020) (affirming
    commitment when the appellant had recently been sexu-
    ally assaulted, was wandering the streets disoriented, had
    extremely poor boundaries, was unable to protect herself,
    and was wearing little or no clothing).
    Here, the evidence in the record included testimony
    that, because of her mental disorder, appellant was refusing
    medication and showed signs of disorganized thought and
    responding to internal stimuli. Appellant was taken to the
    hospital after being found naked in public, and her medi-
    cal provider testified that appellant continued to refuse to
    wear clothing most of her time at the hospital. At the hear-
    ing, appellant had large bruises on her body and testified
    that she had been raped and assaulted just a week prior.
    Considering that evidence as a whole, a rational factfinder
    could infer that due to appellant’s lack of insight, if released,
    appellant would continue to engage in the same behavior
    that had led to her recent rape and assault, therefore mak-
    ing it highly probable that she would suffer physical harm
    in the near term.
    Similarly, ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) defines a person
    with mental illness to include a person who “is unable to
    provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that
    leaves the person at nonspeculative risk of serious physical
    harm—meaning that the person’s safe survival will be com-
    promised—in the near future.” State v. M. A. E., 
    299 Or App 231
    , 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019) (internal quotation marks omit-
    ted). As discussed above, appellant’s lack of insight regard-
    ing her recent assault and ongoing refusal to wear clothing
    in public left appellant at a nonspeculative risk of serious
    physical harm in the near future. Furthermore, evidence in
    the record indicated that appellant was refusing medication
    for her Crohn’s disease, had no income, and had no reason-
    able plan for shelter. Taken as a whole, the record supports
    the trial court’s finding that appellant was unable to meet
    her basic need for safety.
    In her fourth assignment of error, appellant argues
    that the firearms prohibition reflected in the final order was
    692                                             State v. M. T.
    a clerical error that should be corrected to reflect the trial
    judge’s contrary statement that such a prohibition would not
    be ordered. Because a judge’s decision regarding the proper
    disposition may change between the time of the hearing
    and the final signing of the order, we have concluded that
    “a trial court’s decision is governed by the signed order and
    not by any statement the judge makes at the conclusion of
    a proceeding.” State v. Mossman, 
    75 Or App 385
    , 387, 
    706 P2d 203
     (1985) (citing State v. Swain/Goldsmith, 
    267 Or 527
    , 530, 
    517 P2d 684
     (1974)). However, we have vacated
    and remanded judgments for correction where the record
    reveals an obvious clerical error, even if the judgment itself
    is unambiguous. See State v. D. Z., 
    274 Or App 77
    , 80, 359
    P3d 1246 (2015) (vacating and remanding an order of civil
    commitment for correction, where it was apparent from the
    record that the court had checked the wrong box on the form
    regarding the basis for the commitment). Unlike in those
    exceptional cases, here, the evidence and arguments pre-
    sented at appellant’s hearing are not obviously contrary to
    a decision ordering the prohibition. Although it is plausible
    that the trial court made a clerical error when entering the
    final order, it is equally plausible that the court changed its
    mind regarding the proper disposition of the case. Therefore,
    we decline to find an exception in this case and affirm the
    trial court’s final order.
    Affirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A179799

Judges: Egan

Filed Date: 12/20/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2024