State v. L. E. J.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. L. E. J.

DecidedMay 6, 2026

DocketA188995

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. L. E. J. (State v. L. E. J.) 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. L. E. J., (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 373 May 6, 2026 317

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 L. E. J., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. L. E. J., Appellant. Baker County Circuit Court 25CC05705; A188995

Robert S. Raschio, Judge. Submitted March 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.* LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 318 State v. L. E. J.

LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to herself and unable to pro- vide for her basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B) (2019).1 We reverse. Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to give the advice of rights required by ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, the trial court omitted one of the possible results of the hearing, which was that, if the court finds that the alleged mentally ill person is not a person with mental illness, the person may be ordered to partici- pate in assisted outpatient treatment for a period of up to 12 months. ORS 426.130(1)(b)(B); State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all the possible results of civil commitment pro- ceeding is plain error). The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. State v. T. C., 327 Or App 558, 571, 536 P3d 591 (2023), rev den, 371 Or 825 (2024). Reversed.

1 In 2025 the legislature passed House Bill 2005, amending many mental commitment statutes, including the statutory phrase “person with mental ill- ness.” The new versions took effect on January 1, 2026. The statutes cited in this opinion are the prior versions in effect at the time of appellant’s hearing in this case in 2025.

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

No. 373 May 6, 2026 317

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 L. E. J., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. L. E. J., Appellant. Baker County Circuit Court 25CC05705; A188995

Robert S. Raschio, Judge. Submitted March 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.* LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 318 State v. L. E. J.

LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to herself and unable to pro- vide for her basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B) (2019).1 We reverse. Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to give the advice of rights required by ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, the trial court omitted one of the possible results of the hearing, which was that, if the court finds that the alleged mentally ill person is not a person with mental illness, the person may be ordered to partici- pate in assisted outpatient treatment for a period of up to 12 months. ORS 426.130(1)(b)(B); State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all the possible results of civil commitment pro- ceeding is plain error). The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. State v. T. C., 327 Or App 558, 571, 536 P3d 591 (2023), rev den, 371 Or 825 (2024). Reversed.

1 In 2025 the legislature passed House Bill 2005, amending many mental commitment statutes, including the statutory phrase “person with mental ill- ness.” The new versions took effect on January 1, 2026. The statutes cited in this opinion are the prior versions in effect at the time of appellant’s hearing in this case in 2025.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. L. E. J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-l-e-j-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack