State v. A. S., 153 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. A. S., 153 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. D. F. U. (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. A. S., 211 Or App 100, 101 , 153 P3d 151 (2007) (concluding that, on de novo review, the appellant’s repeated statements that he did not want to go to the hos- pital and that hospitalization “won’t do me any good” and “there’s no reason to put me in a hospital” were sufficient Cite as 314 Or App 409 (2021) 411 to preserve the claim of error).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of A. S., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON
v.
A. S.
060261305; A131468.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Feb 14, 2007.
153 P.3d 151
Laura Forester, Certified Law Student, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was Dianna J. Gentry., Denise Fjordbeck, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Landau, Ortega, Schuman.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that he suffers from a mental disorder that renders him unable to provide for his basic needs. ORS 426.005(l)(d). On the merits, the state concedes that the evidence is insufficient to justify appellant’s involuntary commitment. The state argues, however, that appellant never objected to the sufficiency of the evidence at his commitment hearing and that he “in effect * * * stipulated to the commitment.”

We disagree with the state’s contention that appellant failed to preserve the claim of error or stipulated to his commitment. At the commitment hearing, appellant repeatedly stated that he did not want to go to the hospital. He also testified that hospitalization “won’t do me any good” and asserted “there’s no reason to put me in a hospital. I’m fine.” Appellant’s objections were sufficient to preserve the claim of error.

On de novo review, State v. Hitt, 179 Or App 563, 565, 41 P3d 434 (2002), we agree that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that appellant suffers from a mental disorder that renders him unable to provide for his basic needs.

Reversed.