Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. R. K. D.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

• Citations: 347 Or. App. 543
• Docket Number: A186458
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Affirmed.

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

No. 172 February 25, 2026 543

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 R. K. D.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
R. K. D.,
Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
24CC07542; A186458

Drew P. Taylor, Judge pro tempore.
Submitted January 20, 2026.
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
the brief for appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Michael A. Casper,
Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
544 State v. R. K. D.

PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals a judgment of civil commitment.
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 deter-
mined that appellant, because of a mental disorder, is dan-
gerous 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: 347 Or App 543 (2026) 545

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law.
Our task, therefore, is to view the evidence and all reason-
able 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 commitment is a ques-
tion 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 reviewing court is
whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was
highly probable that appellant was a danger to * * * oth-
ers 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 and considered
the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the evidence was
legally sufficient for the trial court to determine that appel-
lant’s mental disorder made him dangerous to others. At
the time of the hearing, appellant had been housed at the
Oregon State Hospital for nearly two years to try to restore
him to competency so that he could aid and assist in his
own defense against pending criminal charges. In the six
months preceding the hearing alone, he had been placed in
seclusion on eight separate occasions, at least two of which
were due to his assaulting another patient or a staff mem-
ber.2 In discussing his assaultive conduct, appellant has
smiled as he described hitting someone in a way that con-
cerned an OSH psychiatrist due to a lack of remorse, has
said “that a voice told him to hit [a] person,” has justified his
conduct based on an unfounded fear of other patients, and
has said that he acted violently because he wanted to go to
prison. Moreover, those assaults took place while appellant
was medicated, and there is evidence that appellant would
likely stop taking his psychiatric medications if released,
at which point his paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions

2
The state asserts in its answering brief that all eight seclusion incidents
were due to assaults by appellant. However, the reasons for six of the seclusion
incidents came in through hearsay, and the trial court sustained appellant’s
hearsay objections.
546 State v. R. K. D.

would likely increase, as would his dangerousness to others.
The record was legally sufficient to support commitment.
Affirmed.