State v. R. A.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. A.

498 P.3d 354, 315 Or. App. 498

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 27, 2021

DocketA175129

StatusPublished

This text of 498 P.3d 354 (State v. R. A.) 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. R. A., 498 P.3d 354, 315 Or. App. 498 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 29, affirmed October 27, 2021

In the Matter of R. A., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. A., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 20CC06957; A175129 498 P3d 354

Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore. Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Daniel Norris, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 315 Or App 498 (2021) 499

PER CURIAM Appellant challenges an order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for 180 days. See ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) (authorizing the commitment of a “person with mental illness”). He argues that the evidence at the hearing is insufficient to support the finding that he is unable to meet his basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) (a person has a “mental illness” if, “because of a mental disorder,” they are “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and [are] not receiving such care as is nec- essary to avoid such harm”). Because the record contains evidence that appellant’s schizophrenia prevents him from comprehending and managing his chronic osteomyelitis, which caused the recent amputation of seven of his toes, and that absent commitment he was likely to require additional amputations or face sepsis in the near future, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellant is unable to provide for his basic medical needs. See State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019) (observing that the standard is met if “the person [is] at nonspeculative risk of serious phys- ical harm—meaning that the person’s safe survival will be compromised—in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent”). Affirmed.

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

Submitted September 29, affirmed October 27, 2021

In the Matter of R. A., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. A., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 20CC06957; A175129 498 P3d 354

Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore. Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Daniel Norris, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 315 Or App 498 (2021) 499

PER CURIAM Appellant challenges an order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for 180 days. See ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) (authorizing the commitment of a “person with mental illness”). He argues that the evidence at the hearing is insufficient to support the finding that he is unable to meet his basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) (a person has a “mental illness” if, “because of a mental disorder,” they are “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and [are] not receiving such care as is nec- essary to avoid such harm”). Because the record contains evidence that appellant’s schizophrenia prevents him from comprehending and managing his chronic osteomyelitis, which caused the recent amputation of seven of his toes, and that absent commitment he was likely to require additional amputations or face sepsis in the near future, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellant is unable to provide for his basic medical needs. See State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019) (observing that the standard is met if “the person [is] at nonspeculative risk of serious phys- ical harm—meaning that the person’s safe survival will be compromised—in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent”). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 P.3d 354, 315 Or. App. 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-a-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack