���Ӷ���Ƶ

“To justify continued commitment on the ‘danger to others’ ground, the state must do more than establish that [A]ppellant was dangerous to others at one time.” State v. D. S., 243 Or App 328, 333, 258 P3d 1250 (2011). “[I]t must establish a factual foundation to predict [A]ppellant’s future dangerousness based on his condition at the time of the hearing in the context of his history.” Id.

Appellant sought reversal of an order re-committing him involuntarily to the Oregon Health Authority. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that he was a person with mental illness and in need of further treatment. On appeal, Appellant argued that “ORS 426.005 precluded a court from committing a person on the basis of a mental disorder alone” and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was a danger to others at the time of his recommitment hearing. “To justify continued commitment on the ‘danger to others’ ground, the state must do more than establish that [A]ppellant was dangerous to others at one time.” State v. D. S., 243 Or App 328, 333, 258 P3d 1250 (2011). “[I]t must establish a factual foundation to predict [A]ppellant’s future dangerousness based on his condition at the time of the hearing in the context of his history.” Id. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Appellant was still dangerous to others under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) at the time of the re-commitment hearing. Reversed.