State v. N. B. (In re N.B.)

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

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Apr 26, 2023

325 Or. App. 621 (Or. Ct. App. 2023)

Opinion

A179245

04-26-2023

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

Christopher J. O'Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Dustin Buehler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 March 3, 2023

Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CC04049; Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore.

Christopher J. O'Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Dustin Buehler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagan, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involuntarily committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, as a person with mental illness, which includes an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms. See ORS 426.130. In her sole assignment 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. 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)(f)(A), 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. A. D. S., 258 Or.App. 44, 45, 308 P.3d 365 (2013) ("Whether the evidence presented * * * is legally sufficient to support a civil commitment is a question of law."). The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's determination that appellant was a person with mental illness and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree that the evidence here was insufficient, accept the state's concession, and reverse the judgment.

Reversed.