786 October 30, 2024 No. 783 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of K. O. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. K. O. S., Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court 24CC00977; A183656 Amy M. Queen, Judge.

Submitted September 13, 2024.

Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

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

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Reversed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 786 (2024) 787 EGAN, J.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment and order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting appellant from pur- chasing or possessing firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be dangerous to others. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). We reverse.1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the state’s evidence to support the court’s determination that she was dangerous to herself or others. The state concedes that the record is legally insufficient to show that appellant posed a danger to others. We agree with and accept the state’s con- cession. Having reviewed the record, the trial court did not find that appellant was a danger to herself, but it did find that she posed a danger to others. We agree with the parties that the record was legally insufficient to make that deter- mination. See State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 754, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (“To establish that a person is dangerous to oth- ers, for purposes of civil commitment, the evidence must be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that actual future violence is highly likely.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).

Reversed.

As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.