State v. R. C.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. C.

453 P.3d 635, 301 Or. App. 175

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 4, 2019

DocketA171414

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 P.3d 635 (State v. R. C.) 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. C., 453 P.3d 635, 301 Or. App. 175 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted November 1, reversed December 4, 2019

In the Matter of R. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. C., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 19CC02963; A171414 453 P3d 635

Monica M. Herranz, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 176 State v. R. C.

PER CURIAM The trial court committed appellant to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days and entered an order prohibiting appellant from pur- chasing or possessing firearms after determining that she was a danger to others. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). Appellant con- tends that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that she is a danger to others. The state concedes that the record is legally insufficient in that regard and that the judgment of commitment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. Reversed.

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

Submitted November 1, reversed December 4, 2019

In the Matter of R. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. C., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 19CC02963; A171414 453 P3d 635

Monica M. Herranz, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 176 State v. R. C.

PER CURIAM The trial court committed appellant to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days and entered an order prohibiting appellant from pur- chasing or possessing firearms after determining that she was a danger to others. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). Appellant con- tends that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that she is a danger to others. The state concedes that the record is legally insufficient in that regard and that the judgment of commitment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 P.3d 635, 301 Or. App. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-c-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack