Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re J. T. C.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 1, 2017

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

          Submitted June 15, 2015

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 140160850; Connie L. Isgro, Judge pro tempore.

          Garrett A. Richardson and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and James Aaron, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him involuntarily to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days on the basis of a mental disorder that, the trial court determined, makes appellant a danger to others and unable to provide for his basic needs. ORS 426.130(1) (a)(C).

         Held:

         The evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that appellant is a danger to others.

         Affirmed.

          HADLOCK, C. J.

         Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him involuntarily to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days on the basis of a mental disorder that, the trial court determined, makes appellant a danger to others and unable to provide for his basic needs. See ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). The state concedes on appeal that the record does not support the trial court's conclusion that appellant was unable to provide for his basic needs. We agree and accept that concession, and we write only to address appellant's contention that the trial court erred in determining that he was a danger to others. We conclude that the evidence in the record is legally sufficient to support that determination; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of commitment.

         Neither party has requested that we review this matter de novo, and we conclude that this is not an "exceptional" case that warrants de novo review. See ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (providing that the court will exercise its discretion to review de novo "only in exceptional cases"). Thus, in reviewing the trial court's judgment, "we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome." State v. S. R. J., 281 Or.App. 741, 743, 386 P.3d 99 (2016).

         Under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), a person may be committed to the Oregon Health Authority for involuntary mental health treatment for up to 180 days if, after a hearing, the court determines that the person meets the definition of "a person with mental illness." The state bears the burden of proving the statutory requirements for commitment by "clear and convincing evidence." ORS 426.130(1)(a). That standard of proof "is a rigorous one, requiring evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, and which makes the fact in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.