## Facts

- On November 5, 1982, D.R.S. and an accomplice committed an armed robbery of a store in Great Falls, Montana.
- During the robbery, the pair took the store clerk behind the building, threatened to shoot him if he did not cooperate, taped him up after obtaining the safe’s combination, and left him under a pile of wood behind the store in the cold.
- The clerk testified he feared for his life and identified D.R.S. as the robber who taped him up while the other robber threatened to shoot him.
- In the related criminal case, D.R.S. was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the custody of the Department of Institutions; he was hospitalized at the Montana State Hospital beginning January 26, 1983.
- After roughly two years of hospitalization, D.R.S. was declared fit to proceed and was transferred to the Cascade County Jail on October 1, 1984, to await trial.
- On January 8, 1985, the district court dismissed the armed-robbery charges on speedy-trial grounds based on the time that elapsed while D.R.S. was unfit to proceed, and directed the county attorney to file a petition for involuntary civil commitment.
- The district court held a full civil-commitment hearing on February 14, 1985, and on February 26, 1985, ordered D.R.S. committed to the Montana State Hospital, with possible later placement in a supervised community setting when hospital staff found it advisable.
- Montana’s civil-commitment statute required the State to show an imminent threat of injury to self or others, evidenced by overt acts sufficiently recent to be material and relevant to the respondent’s present condition.
- The 1982 robbery was the only overt act presented at the civil-commitment hearing.
- A psychiatrist who treated D.R.S. during the hospitalization testified that D.R.S.’s mental condition had not changed between the robbery and the commitment hearing and predicted D.R.S. would become dangerous within about two months if not in a supervised environment, citing D.R.S.’s expressed intent to drink alcohol after release and deterioration when he was in jail without medication.
- D.R.S. appealed, arguing that the robbery was too remote to satisfy the statute’s “sufficiently recent overt act” requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence under § 53-21-126(2), MCA, to prove that D.R.S. posed an imminent threat of injury to others, evidenced by overt acts sufficiently recent in time to be material and relevant to his present condition.
2. Whether a violent act occurring more than two years before the commitment hearing can qualify as the required overt act when medical testimony links the act to an unchanged mental condition and a near-term risk of dangerousness outside supervision.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order committing D.R.S. to the Montana State Hospital.
- The court held that the evidence supported the finding that D.R.S. was “seriously mentally ill” under § 53-21-102(14), MCA, and that he posed an imminent threat of injury to others.
- The court concluded that the 1982 armed robbery, combined with the psychiatrist’s testimony connecting that conduct to D.R.S.’s present mental condition and predicted near-term dangerousness if unsupervised, satisfied the statutory requirement that imminent threat be evidenced by an overt act “sufficiently recent in time” to be material and relevant.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 53-21-102(14), MCA, a “seriously mentally ill” person includes one whose mental disorder has resulted in injury to others or an imminent threat of injury (injury meaning physical injury).
- Under § 53-21-126(2), MCA, the State must prove physical facts beyond a reasonable doubt; other matters by clear and convincing evidence; and the existence of a mental disorder to a reasonable medical certainty.
- “Imminent threat of self-inflicted injury or injury to others shall be evidenced by overt acts, sufficiently recent in time as to be material and relevant as to the respondent’s present condition.” § 53-21-126(2), MCA.
- Montana law does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a future injury will occur; it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a present threat of future injury exists and that the threat is imminent. (Citing Matter of F.B.)
- Whether an overt act is “sufficiently recent” is not determined by a fixed time limit alone; the question is whether the act remains material and relevant to the respondent’s present condition, including whether medical evidence shows the condition has remained substantially the same and that dangerousness is likely to return soon outside a structured setting.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court upheld D.R.S.’s involuntary civil commitment because the State proved an imminent threat of injury through the only overt act in the record—the 1982 armed robbery—supported by psychiatric testimony that D.R.S.’s mental condition had not materially changed and that he would likely become dangerous within a short time if released from supervision, making the older act sufficiently recent and relevant under § 53-21-126(2), MCA.


In Matter of Mental Health of D.R.S., 221 Mont. 245, 718 P.2d 335 (1986)