From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. M. A. (In re M. A.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon
Mar 27, 2024
331 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

Opinion

A182418

03-27-2024

In the Matter of M. A., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. v. M. A., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,

Liza Langford fled the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Julia Glick, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.


This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 February 5, 2024

Malheur County Circuit Court 23CC05876; Erin K. Landis, Judge.

Liza Langford fled the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Julia Glick, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involuntarily committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In two assignments 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 and a danger to others. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A); State v. S. S., 309 Or.App. 131, 133, 480 P.3d 321 (2021) ("For purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(fXA), a person is dangerous to self if the person's mental disorder 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. S. R. J., 281 Or.App. 741, 749, 386 P.3d 99 (2016) ("Similarly, to permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to others, the state must establish that actual future violence is highly likely." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's determination that appellant was a danger to herself or others and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree that the evidence here was insufficient, we accept the state's concession, and we reverse the judgment.

As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

Reversed.


Summaries of

State v. M. A. (In re M. A.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon
Mar 27, 2024
331 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)
Case details for

State v. M. A. (In re M. A.)

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of M. A., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. v. M. A.…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Mar 27, 2024

Citations

331 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)