State v. E. P.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. E. P.

344 Or. App. 581

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 29, 2025

DocketA186804

StatusUnpublished

This text of 344 Or. App. 581 (State v. E. P.) 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. P., 344 Or. App. 581 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 947 October 29, 2025 581

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of E. P., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. E. P., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 25CC00903; A186804

Jane W. Fox, Judge. Submitted September 12, 2025. Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed. 582 State v. E. P.

LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judg- ment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to self and others. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). We reverse.1 Appellant argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that she was dangerous to herself or others. The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (“[T]o permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to self, the clear and convincing evidence must partake of a particularized, and highly probable, threat to [the] appel- lant’s safe survival, including a risk of substantial harm, in the near future. * * * Similarly, to permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to others, the state must establish that actual future violence is highly likely.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

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

No. 947 October 29, 2025 581

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of E. P., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. E. P., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 25CC00903; A186804

Jane W. Fox, Judge. Submitted September 12, 2025. Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed. 582 State v. E. P.

LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judg- ment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to self and others. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). We reverse.1 Appellant argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that she was dangerous to herself or others. The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (“[T]o permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to self, the clear and convincing evidence must partake of a particularized, and highly probable, threat to [the] appel- lant’s safe survival, including a risk of substantial harm, in the near future. * * * Similarly, to permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to others, the state must establish that actual future violence is highly likely.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 Or. App. 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-e-p-orctapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack