State v. Bunting
This text of 86 P.3d 99 (State v. Bunting) 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.
Opinion
In this mental commitment case, appellant argues that the trial court erred in committing him because there was not clear and convincing evidence that he was unable, due to his mental disorder, to provide for his basic needs. ORS 426.005(d)(B). The state concedes that the record fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, because of appellant’s mental disorder, he is unable to provide for his basic needs. On de novo review, State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 61, 545 P2d 97 (1976), we accept the state’s concession.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
86 P.3d 99, 192 Or. App. 485, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bunting-orctapp-2004.