State v. J. U.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. J. U.

298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 633

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 13, 2013

Docket12566MC; A152136

StatusPublished

This text of 298 P.3d 66 (State v. J. U.) 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. U., 298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. In his second assignment of error, he contends that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, as the result of a mental disorder, he is dangerous to himself or others. ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the involuntary commitment and that the order should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse on that basis. Accordingly, we do not address appellant’s other assignment of error, in which he argues that the trial court erred in not advising him of all of the potential consequences of the civil commitment proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. In his second assignment of error, he contends that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, as the result of a mental disorder, he is dangerous to himself or others. ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the involuntary commitment and that the order should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse on that basis. Accordingly, we do not address appellant’s other assignment of error, in which he argues that the trial court erred in not advising him of all of the potential consequences of the civil commitment proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-j-u-orctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack