State v. M. R.

234 P.3d 1085, 236 Or. App. 182, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 707
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 30, 2010·No. 08081706; A140159·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that she is a danger to others due to her mental disorder. Former ORS 426.005(l)(d)(A) (2007), renumbered as ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A) (2009). The state concedes that the record does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that appellant’s mental disorder renders her dangerous to others. On de novo review,1 we accept the state’s concession and agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the involuntary commitment.

Reversed.

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

State v. M. R., 234 P.3d 1085, 236 Or. App. 182, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 707 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

234 P.3d 1085 (State v. M. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. MR
234 P.3d 1085 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)