State v. E. G.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. E. G.

373 P.3d 149, 277 Or. App. 572

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 13, 2016

Docket15CC05284; A160510

StatusPublished

This text of 373 P.3d 149 (State v. E. G.) 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. E. G., 373 P.3d 149, 277 Or. App. 572 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and is dangerous to herself and unable to provide for her basic personal needs. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it appointed a mental health examiner who was not qualified and then “reviewed, considered, and admitted” that examiner’s report into evidence. Pursuant to ORS 426.110(1), for the purposes of conducting an involuntary commitment hearing, the trial court must appoint a “qualified examiner.”¹ As relevant to this case, to be qualified, an examiner must be “[c]erti-fied by the [Oregon Health Authority] or the Psychiatric Security Review Board as a mental health examiner qualified to make examinations for involuntary commitment proceedings.” ORS 426.110(2)(b)(B). Here, when asked if he was certified, the appointed mental health examiner stated that he did “not believe that [he was] currently certified.” The state concedes that the trial court erred by failing to appoint a qualified mental health examiner, as required by ORS 426.110, and that, under the circumstances of this case, that error requires reversal. We agree and accept the state’s concession.²

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and is dangerous to herself and unable to provide for her basic personal needs. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it appointed a mental health examiner who was not qualified and then “reviewed, considered, and admitted” that examiner’s report into evidence. Pursuant to ORS 426.110(1), for the purposes of conducting an involuntary commitment hearing, the trial court must appoint a “qualified examiner.”¹ As relevant to this case, to be qualified, an examiner must be “[c]erti-fied by the [Oregon Health Authority] or the Psychiatric Security Review Board as a mental health examiner qualified to make examinations for involuntary commitment proceedings.” ORS 426.110(2)(b)(B). Here, when asked if he was certified, the appointed mental health examiner stated that he did “not believe that [he was] currently certified.” The state concedes that the trial court erred by failing to appoint a qualified mental health examiner, as required by ORS 426.110, and that, under the circumstances of this case, that error requires reversal. We agree and accept the state’s concession.²

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 P.3d 149, 277 Or. App. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-e-g-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack