State v. M. P.

No. 385 May 6, 2026 355

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 M. P., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. M. P., Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court 24CC06407; A187418 Michelle Vlach-Ing, Judge.

Submitted March 13, 2026.

Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant.

Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J.

Reversed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b).

356 State v. M. P. EGAN, J.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment continu- ing her commitment to the Oregon Health Authority for an additional 180 days. The trial court entered that judgment after finding that appellant continued to suffer from a men- tal disorder that caused her to be a danger to others and was in need of further treatment. See ORS 426.301 (2013), amended by Or Laws 2025, c. 559, § 13; ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) (2019), amended by. Or Laws 2025, c. 559, § 4.1 We reverse.

Appellant argues that the state’s evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that she was dangerous to others at the time of the recommit- ment hearing. See State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 774, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (a person is dangerous to others when “actual future violence is highly likely” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed.

In 2025 the legislature passed House Bill 2005, amending many mental commitment statutes, including the statutory phrase “person with mental ill- ness” and providing a definition for danger to others. The new versions took effect on January 1, 2026. The statutes cited here are the versions in effect at the time of appellant’s hearing in this case in 2025.