426.307 Court
hearing; continuance; attorney; examination; determination of mental illness;
order of further commitment; period of commitment. If a person with mental illness
requests a hearing under ORS 426.301 or if the court proceeds under ORS 426.275
(5), the following provisions apply:
(1) The hearing
shall be conducted as promptly as possible and at a time and place as the court
may direct.
(2) If the person
requests a continuance in order to prepare for the hearing or to obtain legal
counsel to represent the person, the court may grant postponement and detention
during postponement as provided under ORS 426.095.
(3) The person
has the right to representation by or appointment of counsel as provided under
ORS 426.100 subject to ORS 135.055, 151.216 and 151.219.
(4) If the person
requests an examination by a physician or other qualified professional as
recommended by the Oregon Health Authority and is without funds to retain a
physician or other qualified professional for purposes of the examination, the
court shall appoint a physician or other qualified professional, other than a
member of the staff from the facility where the person is confined, to examine
the person at no expense to the person and to report to the court the results
of the examination.
(5) The
provisions of ORS 40.230, 40.235, 40.240 and 40.250 do not apply to the use of
medical records from the current period of commitment or to testimony related
to such records or period of commitment in connection with hearings under this
section. The court may consider as evidence such reports and testimony.
(6) The court
shall then conduct a hearing and after hearing the evidence and reviewing the
recommendations of the treating and examining physicians or other qualified
professionals, the court shall determine whether the person is still a person
with mental illness and is in need of further treatment. If in the opinion of
the court the individual is still a person with mental illness by clear and
convincing evidence and is in need of further treatment, the court may order
commitment to the authority for an additional indefinite period of time up to
180 days.
(7) At the end of
the 180-day period, the person shall be released unless the authority or
facility again certifies to the committing court that the person is still a
person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment, in which event
the procedures set forth in ORS 426.301 to 426.307 shall be followed. [1973
c.838 §17; 1975 c.690 §21; 1979 c.408 §5; 1987 c.803 §24; 1987 c.903 §§33,33a;
1989 c.171 §53; 1993 c.484 §24; 1997 c.649 §4; 2001 c.962 §61; 2009 c.595 §420;
2013 c.360 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
70
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 25× “301 to ORS 426.307 is unconstitutional on its face under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Article III, Section 1, and Article VII (Amended), Section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.”
State v. Hitt, 41 P.3d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Appellant challenges an order continuing his civil commitment pursuant to ORS 426.307. We conclude on de novo review, State v.”
State v. Linde, 41 P.3d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Appellant seeks reversal of an order continuing his civil commitment pursuant to ORS 426.307. He asserts that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, because of a mental disorder, he continued to be either a danger to himself or unable to provide for…”
State v. M. C. D., 467 P.3d 84 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 426.307(6) (if person with mental illness requests hearing, “court shall * * * conduct a hearing and * * * shall determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment”).”
State v. Ritzman, 84 P.3d 1129 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Although an “Order of Revocation of Trial Visit” is part of the record in this case, it bears a different case number. The other documents in the file clarify that this particular proceeding was a recommitment hearing.”
State v. Bunting, 826 P.2d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 426.307(6). The trial court found that defendant is a person who, because of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his basic personal needs and is not receiving the care necessary for his health or safety.”
State v. Johnson, 886 P.2d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “ORS 426.307(6). He contends that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a mentally ill person because he is "dangerous to self.”
State v. D. S., 258 P.3d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment extending his involuntary commitment to the custody of the Mental Health Division, ORS 426.307, based on a finding that, because of a mental disorder, he was dangerous to others, ORS 426.”
State v. M. G. (In re M. G.), 440 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Protesting further commitment triggers a hearing. ORS 426.303. After the hearing, the court must "determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.”
State v. Hilliard, 98 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “301 and ORS 426.307 apply to situations in which DHS seeks to provide further treatment to a person after the initial 180-day commitment ends.”
State v. C. A. J., 213 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “ORS 426.307. She contends (1) that the trial court erred in finding that the state proved by clear and convincing evidence that she was “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs and is not receiving such care as is necessary for health or safety,” ORS 426.”
State v. S. T. (In re S.T.), 432 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" ORS 426.307(6) ; ORS 426.301. ORS 426.005(1)(f) describes three circumstances in which an individual may be deemed a "[p]erson with mental illness" for purposes of the commitment statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.307(5) — 4 cases
State v. D. S., 258 P.3d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment extending his involuntary commitment to the custody of the Mental Health Division, ORS 426.307, based on a finding that, because of a mental disorder, he was dangerous to others, ORS 426.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.307(6) — 45 cases
State v. M. C. D., 467 P.3d 84 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“See ORS 426.307(6) (if person with mental illness requests hearing, “court shall * * * conduct a hearing and * * * shall determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment”).”
State v. Bunting, 826 P.2d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 426.307(6). The trial court found that defendant is a person who, because of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his basic personal needs and is not receiving the care necessary for his health or safety.”
State v. Johnson, 886 P.2d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“ORS 426.307(6). He contends that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a mentally ill person because he is "dangerous to self.”
State v. Hitt, 41 P.3d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Appellant challenges an order continuing his civil commitment pursuant to ORS 426.307. We conclude on de novo review, State v.”
State v. M. G. (In re M. G.), 440 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Protesting further commitment triggers a hearing. ORS 426.303. After the hearing, the court must "determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.307(7) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.