Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024

State v. C. K. P.

State v. C. K. P.
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided October 30, 2024 · Lagesen
335 Or. App. 771

State v. C. K. P.

Opinion

No. 776 October 30, 2024 771 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 C. K. P., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. C. K. P., Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 24CC00187; A183517 Debra K. Vogt, Judge.

Submitted September 13, 2024.

Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

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

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Reversed.

772 State v. C. K. P. LAGESEN, C. J.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. The trial court entered that judgment after finding that appellant suffered from a men- tal disorder that caused her to be unable to meet her basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B). We reverse.1 On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the state’s evidence to support the court’s basic-needs determination. The state concedes that the record is legally insufficient in that regard. See State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019) (explaining that ORS 426.005 (1)(f)(B) requires a “nonspeculative risk of ‘serious physi- cal harm’—meaning that the person’s safe survival will be compromised—in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent”). Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.