State v. M. S.
This text of 190 P.3d 385 (State v. M. S.) 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.
Opinion
In this involuntary commitment case, the trial court found appellant to be mentally retarded and subject to involuntary commitment because his retardation caused him to be a danger to himself and others, as well as unable to provide for his basic personal needs. ORS 427.215; ORS 427.290. On appeal, appellant contends that the record contains insufficient evidence to support the order of involuntary commitment. The state concedes that the record is legally insufficient to prove the grounds for commitment. On de novo review, ORS 19.415(3); State v. Neal, 150 Or App 432, 434, 946 P2d 367 (1997) (citing State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)), we agree that the record is insufficient and that the trial court erred.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
190 P.3d 385, 221 Or. App. 206, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-m-s-orctapp-2008.