State v. L. J. L.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: December 31, 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of L. J. L., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. L. J. L., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 301306342 A154010 Maurice K. Merten, Judge. Submitted on November 07, 2014. James A. Palmer filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Tiffany Keast, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. DESIGNATION OF PREVAILING PARTY AND AWARD OF COSTS Prevailing party: [ ] [ ] [ ] Appellant No costs allowed. Costs allowed, payable by Costs allowed, to abide the outcome on remand, payable by 1 PER CURIAM 2 Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him for a period not to 3 exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant "is suffering from a 4 mental disorder, is a danger to himself and others, will not benefit from voluntary 5 commitment and although is able to provide for his basic personal needs, outside the 6 institutional setting is not now receiving such care as is necessary for his health or 7 safety." Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling (1) that appellant was a 8 danger to himself or others and (2) that he "was not receiving necessary care without state 9 intervention." The state concedes both errors--that is, it agrees with appellant that the 10 evidence is insufficient to support commitment based on danger to self or others and that 11 "the trial court erred by, having found appellant able to meet his basic needs, nonetheless 12 ordering him committed based on inability to meet basic needs." We agree and accept 13 the state's concessions. See State v. K. K. G., 267 Or App 319, ___, ___P3d ___ (Nov 26, 14 2014) (slip op at 2) (holding that the trial court erred in ordering appellant's involuntary 15 commitment based on appellant "not receiving [such] care for his basic needs as is 16 necessary for health and safety even though the trial court found him able to provide for 17 his basic needs"). Accordingly, we reverse. 18 Reversed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
