State v. J. D.-G. (In re J. D.-G.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. J. D.-G. (In re J. D.-G.)

422 P.3d 390, 293 Or. App. 100

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 25, 2018

DocketA163132

StatusPublished

This text of 422 P.3d 390 (State v. J. D.-G. (In re J. D.-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. J. D.-G. (In re J. D.-G.), 422 P.3d 390, 293 Or. App. 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*391 *101Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) and an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that, because of a mental disorder, he was a danger to self, as the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from schizophrenia or that he would engage in behavior that would result in actual serious physical harm to self in the near future. The state agrees with defendant that the record is legally insufficient to meet the 'danger to self standard' under our case law, and therefore concedes that the trial court erred.

We accept the state's concession. See State v. D. J. , 206 Or.App. 146, 153, 135 P.3d 397 (2006) (reversing the appellant's commitment on the basis that "there [was] no evidence that appellant's behavior has ever resulted in physical harm to him, life-threatening or otherwise"). Accordingly, we reverse both the judgment of commitment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possession firearms. See State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or.App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possessing firearm).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*391 *101Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) and an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that, because of a mental disorder, he was a danger to self, as the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from schizophrenia or that he would engage in behavior that would result in actual serious physical harm to self in the near future. The state agrees with defendant that the record is legally insufficient to meet the 'danger to self standard' under our case law, and therefore concedes that the trial court erred.

We accept the state's concession. See State v. D. J. , 206 Or.App. 146, 153, 135 P.3d 397 (2006) (reversing the appellant's commitment on the basis that "there [was] no evidence that appellant's behavior has ever resulted in physical harm to him, life-threatening or otherwise"). Accordingly, we reverse both the judgment of commitment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possession firearms. See State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or.App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possessing firearm).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 P.3d 390, 293 Or. App. 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-j-d-g-in-re-j-d-g-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack