State v. K. M. C.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. K. M. C.

DecidedApril 1, 2026

DocketA188572

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. K. M. C. (State v. K. M. C.) 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. K. M. C., (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

190 April 1, 2026 No. 254

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 K. M. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. K. M. C., Appellant. Union County Circuit Court 25CC04361; A188572

Susan M. Tripp, Senior Judge. Submitted February 13, 2026. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 190 (2026) 191

EGAN, J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the pur- chase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to be a danger to himself and others and that he was unable to provide for his basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B). On appeal, appel- lant argues that the judgment and order should be reversed because the trial court plainly erred by failing to inform defendant of all of the possible outcomes of the hearing. ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, the court failed to inform appellant of the possibility for assisted outpatient treatment. The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession and exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons expressed in State v. J.R.B., 290 Or App 858, 863, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (nature of civil commitment proceedings, the inter- ests of the parties, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice). Accordingly, we reverse.1 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

190 April 1, 2026 No. 254

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 K. M. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. K. M. C., Appellant. Union County Circuit Court 25CC04361; A188572

Susan M. Tripp, Senior Judge. Submitted February 13, 2026. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 190 (2026) 191

EGAN, J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the pur- chase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to be a danger to himself and others and that he was unable to provide for his basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B). On appeal, appel- lant argues that the judgment and order should be reversed because the trial court plainly erred by failing to inform defendant of all of the possible outcomes of the hearing. ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, the court failed to inform appellant of the possibility for assisted outpatient treatment. The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession and exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons expressed in State v. J.R.B., 290 Or App 858, 863, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (nature of civil commitment proceedings, the inter- ests of the parties, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice). Accordingly, we reverse.1 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)

State v. K. M. C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-k-m-c-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack