State v. J. T.-K. T.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: April 1, 2026
• Docket: A187041
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 277 April 1, 2026 269

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 J. T.-K. T., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. J. T.-K. T., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 25CC01488; A187041

Matthew L. Tracey, Judge pro tempore. Submitted February 18, 2026. Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, Pagán, Judge, and Walters, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 270 State v. J. T.-K. T.

PER CURIAM Appellant challenges a judgment of civil commit- ment. The trial court ordered that appellant be committed to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, based on appellant being a “person with mental illness.” ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) (2023), amended by Or Laws 2025, ch 559, § 5.1 Specifically, the trial court determined that appellant, because of a mental disorder, is dangerous to others. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) (2023), amended by Or Laws 2025, ch 559, § 4. We affirm. To meet the legal standard for a danger to others commitment, the state must prove that the person has a men- tal disorder that makes the person “highly likely to engage in future violence toward others, absent commitment.” State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019). “A single violent act may be sufficient to establish that a person is dan- gerous to others, if the circumstances of the act, the person’s history, or other contextual evidence allows the court to rely on the act to predict future dangerousness.” State v. J. G., 302 Or App 97, 100-01, 458 P3d 721 (2020). However, “overt acts of violence are not necessary to establish dangerousness to others. Verbal threats may be enough in appropriate circum- stances.” Id. at 101 n 3. Generally, when verbal threats are at issue, the state will have “to provide evidence that shows that the appellant’s threats of future violence are accompa- nied by an overt act demonstrating an intention and ability to carry out the threats or other circumstances indicating that actual future violence is highly likely.” State v. L. R., 283 Or App 618, 625, 391 P3d 880 (2017). We require the state to establish that “actual future violence is highly likely,” given “the serious deprivation of liberty and social stigma that are attendant to a civil commitment, and the fact that such a preventive confinement is predicated on a prediction of future behavior.” State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The trial court determined the legal standard to be met here. On review, in a preserved claim of error, appellant 1 New civil commitment standards became operative on January 1, 2026. Or Laws 2025, ch 559, § 66. Appellant was committed under the older version of the statutes, so the new standards are not at issue in this case. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 269 (2026) 271

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law. Our task, therefore, is to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support civil commitment. L. R., 283 Or App at 619. “Whether the evidence presented by the state is legally sufficient to support a civil commit- ment is a question of law.” State v. A. D. S., 258 Or App 44, 45, 308 P3d 365 (2013). “Ultimately, in view of the clear-and- convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceedings, the question for us as the review- ing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly probable that appellant was a danger to * * * others because of a mental disorder.” State v. S. A. R., 308 Or App 365, 366, 479 P3d 618 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, having reviewed the record, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient for the trial court to deter- mine that appellant’s mental disorder made him dangerous to others. In the case at hand, appellant’s treating physi- cian diagnosed his schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. He suffers from delusions and was unable to engage mean- ingfully with those around him, as evidenced by his contin- uous interruptions during his commitment hearing. Prior to his hospitalization, appellant made threats to decapitate his mother and son. Those threats rose to the level of con- duct when appellant chased his mother up the stairs in her home, forcing her to lock him out and call police. Neither his threats nor his hostility improved after being hospital- ized and receiving medication. Both of the state’s experts opined that appellant would not be able to remain compliant with treatment on his own. That record, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, permitted the trial court to find that appellant was highly likely to engage in future violence toward others, absent commitment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of civil commitment. Affirmed.