State v. R. K. (In re R. K.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. K. (In re R. K.)

426 P.3d 257, 294 Or. App. 188

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 19, 2018

DocketA166742

StatusPublished

This text of 426 P.3d 257 (State v. R. K. (In re R. K.)) 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. K. (In re R. K.), 426 P.3d 257, 294 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*189The 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 purchasing or possessing firearms after determining that he was a danger to others and unable to provide for his basic needs because of a mental disorder. See ORS 426.005 (1)(f)(A), (B). On appeal, he argues that the record does not contain legally sufficient evidence to support the involuntary commitment. 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.¹ See State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing or possessing firearms).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*189The 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 purchasing or possessing firearms after determining that he was a danger to others and unable to provide for his basic needs because of a mental disorder. See ORS 426.005 (1)(f)(A), (B). On appeal, he argues that the record does not contain legally sufficient evidence to support the involuntary commitment. 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.¹ See State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing or possessing firearms).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 P.3d 257, 294 Or. App. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-k-in-re-r-k-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack