State v. B. H. H.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. B. H. H.

323 P.3d 484, 261 Or. App. 474

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 26, 2014

Docket130666395; A154623

StatusPublished

This text of 323 P.3d 484 (State v. B. H. H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. B. H. H., 323 P.3d 484, 261 Or. App. 474 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She asserts that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, because of a mental disorder, she is a danger to herself and unable to provide for her basic personal needs. ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A), (B). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the involuntary commitment and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse on that basis. Accordingly, we do not address appellant’s other, unpreserved assignment of error, in which she contends that the trial court erred in failing to advise her of the possible results of the commitment proceeding, as required by ORS 426.100(l)(c).

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She asserts that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, because of a mental disorder, she is a danger to herself and unable to provide for her basic personal needs. ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A), (B). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the involuntary commitment and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse on that basis. Accordingly, we do not address appellant’s other, unpreserved assignment of error, in which she contends that the trial court erred in failing to advise her of the possible results of the commitment proceeding, as required by ORS 426.100(l)(c).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 P.3d 484, 261 Or. App. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-b-h-h-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack