State v. N. B.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. N. B.

325 Or. App. 621

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 26, 2023

DocketA179245

StatusUnpublished

This text of 325 Or. App. 621 (State v. N. B.) 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. N. B., 325 Or. App. 621 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted March 3, reversed April 26, 2023

In the Matter of N. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. N. B., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CC04049; A179245

Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore. Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Dustin Buehler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 622 State v. N. B.

PER CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involun- tarily committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, as a person with mental illness, which includes an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms. See ORS 426.130. In her sole assignment 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. 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 disor- der would cause him or her to engage in behavior that is likely to result in physical harm to self in the near term.” (Brackets and internal quotation marks omitted.)); State v. A. D. S., 258 Or App 44, 45, 308 P3d 365 (2013) (“Whether the evidence presented * * * is legally sufficient to support a civil commitment is a question of law.”). The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that appellant was a person with mental ill- ness and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree that the evidence here was insufficient, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the judgment. Reversed.

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

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted March 3, reversed April 26, 2023

In the Matter of N. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. N. B., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CC04049; A179245

Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore. Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Dustin Buehler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 622 State v. N. B.

PER CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involun- tarily committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, as a person with mental illness, which includes an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms. See ORS 426.130. In her sole assignment 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. 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 disor- der would cause him or her to engage in behavior that is likely to result in physical harm to self in the near term.” (Brackets and internal quotation marks omitted.)); State v. A. D. S., 258 Or App 44, 45, 308 P3d 365 (2013) (“Whether the evidence presented * * * is legally sufficient to support a civil commitment is a question of law.”). The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that appellant was a person with mental ill- ness and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree that the evidence here was insufficient, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the judgment. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 Or. App. 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-n-b-orctapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack