State v. M. A.

331 Or. App. 663

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: March 27, 2024
• Docket: A182418
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 204 March 27, 2024 663

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 M. A., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. M. A., Appellant. Malheur County Circuit Court 23CC05876; A182418

Erin K. Landis, Judge. Submitted February 5, 2024. Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Julia Glick, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 664 State v. M. A.

PER CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involun- tarily committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In two assignments of error, appellant contends that the record does not contain legally sufficient evidence that, due to a mental disorder, she was a danger to herself and a dan- ger to others. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A); State v. S. S., 309 Or App 131, 133, 480 P3d 321 (2021) (“For purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A), a person is dangerous to self if the person’s mental disorder would cause him or her to engage in behav- ior that is likely to result in physical harm to self in the near term.” (Brackets and internal quotation marks omit- ted.)); State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (“Similarly, to permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to others, the state must establish that actual future violence is highly likely.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that appellant was a danger to herself or others and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree that the evidence here was insufficient, we accept the state’s concession, and we reverse the judgment.1 Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.