State v. F. P.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. F. P.

166 P.3d 574, 214 Or. App. 469, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1136

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 15, 2007

Docket041070715; A126472

StatusPublished

This text of 166 P.3d 574 (State v. F. 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. F. P., 166 P.3d 574, 214 Or. App. 469, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1136 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals from a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for treatment for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and, as a consequence of that disorder, was dangerous to others. On appeal, appellant does not dispute that he has a mental disorder but contends that the record is insufficient to establish that, as of the time of the commitment hearing, he was dangerous to others. A discussion of the facts would be of no benefit to the bench, bar, or public. We determine, on de novo review, that there was not clear and convincing evidence that defendant was, in fact, dangerous to others as a result of his mental disorder. See generally State v. Sea, 137 Or App 333, 336, 904 P2d 182 (1995) (“To be ‘clear and convincing,’ evidence must be of ‘extraordinary persuasiveness.’ ” (Citation omitted.)).

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 from a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for treatment for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and, as a consequence of that disorder, was dangerous to others. On appeal, appellant does not dispute that he has a mental disorder but contends that the record is insufficient to establish that, as of the time of the commitment hearing, he was dangerous to others. A discussion of the facts would be of no benefit to the bench, bar, or public. We determine, on de novo review, that there was not clear and convincing evidence that defendant was, in fact, dangerous to others as a result of his mental disorder. See generally State v. Sea, 137 Or App 333, 336, 904 P2d 182 (1995) (“To be ‘clear and convincing,’ evidence must be of ‘extraordinary persuasiveness.’ ” (Citation omitted.)).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 P.3d 574, 214 Or. App. 469, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-f-p-orctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack