Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Siebold

State v. Siebold

786 P.2d 219, 100 Or. App. 365, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 70
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 31, 1990
Docket8903-95465; CA A60387
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 786 P.2d 219 (State v. Siebold) 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. Siebold, 786 P.2d 219, 100 Or. App. 365, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 70 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

*366 PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him to the Mental Health Division. ORS 426.005(2). 1 We reverse.

It is undisputed that appellant suffers from a mental disorder. The trial court found that he was a danger to himself, 2 based on a single occurrence in which he was involved in an automobile accident after he was distracted by a billboard. His distraction was caused by his mental disorder. As a result, he collided with a car parked in an emergency lane. There is no other evidence that his mental disorder has ever endangered him. ORS 426.130 provides that the requirements of ORS 426.005(2) be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is “evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness.” State v. Howell, 53 Or App 611, 617, 633 P2d 14 (1981), citing Pantano v. Obbiso, 283 Or 83, 87, 580 P2d 1026 (1978). On de novo review we reverse. The evidence does not convince us that he is a danger to himself.

Reversed.

1

ORS 426.005 provides, in relevant part:

“(2) ‘Mentally ill person’ means a person who, because of a mental disorder, is one or more of the following:
“(a) Dangerous to self or others.
“(b) Unable to provide for basic personal needs and is not receiving such care as is necessary for health or safety.”
2

The court found insufficient evidence that appellant was unable to provide for his basic personal needs or was a danger to others. We agree with the trial court on those issues.

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

Related

State v. D. R.
244 P.3d 916 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)
State v. DR
244 P.3d 916 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)
State v. J. G.
180 P.3d 63 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2008)
State v. JG
180 P.3d 63 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2008)
State v. Olsen
145 P.3d 350 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2006)
State v. Webb
63 P.3d 1258 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2003)
State v. DeMartino
991 P.2d 1093 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1999)
State v. Gjerde
935 P.2d 1224 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
State v. Harris-Garner
925 P.2d 596 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)
State v. Sea
904 P.2d 182 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)
State v. Johnson
886 P.2d 42 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
786 P.2d 219, 100 Or. App. 365, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-siebold-orctapp-1990.