Background
Dustin Leroy Rotter was found guilty except for insanity of attempted murder in 2015 after ramming his car into a tanker truck and repeatedly stabbing its driver. The trial court placed him under the Psychiatric Security Review Board’s jurisdiction for up to 20 years. Rotter was conditionally released to a residential treatment home in 2017.
At a May 2023 status hearing, psychologist Chelsea Gilbert testified that Rotter did not have a schizophrenia-spectrum or affective psychotic disorder and did not present a substantial danger because of his diagnosed ADHD. Psychiatric nurse practitioner Tylr Wagner likewise testified that Rotter would pose a substantial danger only if he relapsed on methamphetamine. Both witnesses discussed Rotter’s January 2023 discontinuation of a reportedly subtherapeutic dose of antipsychotic medication and reported no resulting problems.
The PSRB nevertheless found that Rotter had an unspecified schizophrenia-spectrum and other psychotic disorder and would remain a substantial danger without adequate supervision and treatment. It denied discharge and continued his conditional release, relying in part on the nearly decade-old offense, his criminal history, earlier diagnoses, and uncertainty about whether symptoms might recur after he stopped medication.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that substantial evidence did not support the PSRB’s finding that Rotter presented a substantial danger to others at the time of the May 2023 hearing because of a qualifying mental disorder. The court assumed without deciding that substantial evidence supported the PSRB’s finding that Rotter had a qualifying mental disorder.
The PSRB was entitled to reject Gilbert’s and Wagner’s opinions, but the record contained no other evidence addressing Rotter’s current condition and dangerousness. The circumstances of his old offense and criminal history did not establish current risk, and the PSRB did not explain why those events showed that future symptoms would make him dangerous.
The PSRB also could not infer dangerousness merely because Rotter had recently stopped taking antipsychotic medication. There was no evidence that his symptoms had recurred or that any recurrence would make him dangerous, while uncontested evidence showed no problems after discontinuation and indicated that his former dose had been subtherapeutic. The PSRB’s reasoning therefore rested on an impermissibly speculative chain of events.
Key Takeaways
- A PSRB finding of substantial danger must be supported by evidence addressing the person’s condition and risk at the time of the hearing.
- An old underlying offense and criminal history do not, without an adequate evidentiary connection and explanation, establish present dangerousness.
- Stopping antipsychotic medication does not itself prove dangerousness when the record shows neither recurring symptoms nor a connection between possible recurrence and danger to others.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that continued PSRB jurisdiction requires evidence of present substantial danger resulting from a qualifying mental disorder, not merely a serious historical offense or concern that symptoms might return. Although the PSRB may reject current expert opinions, it still must identify other substantial evidence supporting its finding.
The court did not order Rotter discharged or decide whether he has a qualifying mental disorder. It returned the matter to the PSRB after concluding that the existing order lacked substantial evidence of current dangerousness.