In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Soua Kue

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0304

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Soua Kue

Filed July 23, 2018
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-MH-PR-17-16

Kathleen K. Rauenhorst, Ra uenhorst & Associate, P.A., Roseville, Minnesota (for
appellant Soua Kue)

John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Timothy Carey, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Ramsey County)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M ., Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and
Kalitowski, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Soua Kue was civilly committe d as mentally ill a nd dangerous. Kue
appeals the district court’s final-determinat ion order, arguing that the district court’s
finding that she is mentally ill and dangerous is not supported by sufficient evidence. We
affirm.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of A ppeals, serving by appoi ntment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
FACTS
In the late summer and fall of 2016, Ku e had difficulty maintaining psychiatric
stability and required multiple hospitalizati ons. During her hosp italizations, Kue had
several violent episodes: on October 16, she stru ck a nurse in the head with a closed fist
and attempted to escape; on October 21, she punched a nurse repeatedly; and on
December 30, she assaulted a nurse, repeatedly hitting the nurse in the head and scratching
her, causing significant injury.
The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office filed a petition for judicial commitment on
January 6, 2017, alleging that Kue is (1) mentally ill and dangerous and (2) chemically
dependent. A preliminary hearing was held. The district court conc luded that Kue is a
“mentally ill and dangerous person in need of commitment.” Kue was initially committed
to the custody of Minnesota Security Hosp ital, and a 60-day evaluation and report was
ordered. In September, D r. Adam Milz submitted his 60- day report. In November,
Dr. Peter Meyers evaluated Kue and wrote a final-determination report based on that
evaluation. In December, Kue’s final-determ ination hearing was held. Dr. Meyers and
Kue testified at the hearing. The cour t also considered Dr. Milz’s report and
recommendations.
The district court issued its final determination on December 28. After summarizing
Dr. Meyers’s testimony and Dr. Milz’s report regarding Kue’s diagnosed mental illness,
treatment needs, and elevated risk of future vi olent acts based on that illness, the district
court concluded that “there is clear and conv incing evidence, which was presented at the
final determination hearing, that [Kue] conti nues to be a person who is Mentally Ill and

3
Dangerous” and that “there is no evidence of a less restrictive alternative that is available
to meet both [Kue’s] treatment needs and the needs of public safety other than treatment at
the Minnesota Security Hospital.”
Kue appeals.
D E C I S I O N
A person may be committed if the district court finds that the proposed patient is
mentally ill, mentally ill a nd dangerous, develo pmentally disabled, or chemically
dependent. Minn. Stat. §§ 253B.09, subd. 1(a), .18, subd. 1(a) (2016). A person is mentally
ill and dangerous if the individual (1) is mentally ill and (2) presents a “clear danger to the
safety of others” as demonstrated by facts showing that “the person has engaged in an overt
act causing or attempting to cause serious phys ical harm to another” and “there is a
substantial likelihood that the person will e ngage in acts capable of inflicting serious
physical harm” in the future. Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 17(a) (2016).
Kue does not challenge the conclusion that she is mentally ill. But Kue argues that
the county failed to produce clear and convi ncing evidence that she met the statutory
requirements for judicial commitment as a mentally ill and dangerous person. Specifically,
she asserts that “[n]o evidence was presented that [she] caused serious physical harm”;
instead, the district court merely “presumed” that she intended to cause harm and that her
mental illness could “not be treated and superv ised” so that she would no longer “pose a
future risk of inflicting serious physical harm to another.”
The county has the burden of proving th e necessary facts by clear and convincing
evidence. Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 , subd. 1(a). “On appeal, th is court applies a clear-error

4
standard of review to the district court’s findings of fact and reviews the record in the light
most favorable to the findings of fact”. In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , 853 N.W.2d
803, 807 (Minn. App. 2014).
We conclude that the final-determin ation order was supported by clear and
convincing evidence that Kue remained mentally ill an d dangerous within the provisions
of Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 17(a). The record indicates that Kue has been consistently
diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and polysubstance
abuse, and various medical reports have docu mented her violent behavior for over eight
years. At the final-determination hearing, Dr. Meyers testified that Kue “continues to meet
criteria for a substantial mental illness,” had a history of “multiple issues of violence
against others,” and continued to present a clear danger to the safety of others because “she
has tremendous mood lability, and in that mood lability she becomes violent against
others.” Noting Kue’s most recent acts of violence in the fall of 2016, Dr. Meyers observed
in his report:
[Kue’s] assaults leading into [Minnesota Security Hospital]
were unprovoked attacks toward staff who were there to help
her. Her attacks were significant leaving her victims unable to
work, one of whom has not yet returned. Given her history of
poor compliance, the use of street drugs, and limited insight
into overall care it is opined she continues to remain a threat to
self and others and is dangerous. Historically, when left on her
own all treatment and recommendations stop once back in the
community; violence and decompensation bring her back into
the hospital.

In assessing Kue’s risk for fu ture violent behavior, Dr. Milz noted that Kue’s “long-term
risk for future violence is elev ated as a result of a history of problems with violence (i.e.,

5
. . . threatening and physically assaultive beha vior . . .).” Likewise, another expert who
evaluated Kue at the hospital concluded that she “had a very high risk for future violence.”
Based on the expert testimony and reports presen ted at the final-determination hearing, it
is clear that Kue has a mental illness, previ ously engaged in overt acts of violence, and
continues to have a significant likelihood of committing future acts of physical harm
against others as a result of this mental illness.
Viewing the record in the light most favorab le to the district court’s findings, we
conclude that clear and convincing evidence s upports the district court’s conclusion that
Kue continues to be a pers on who is mentally ill and da ngerous under the statutory
definition.
Affirmed.