Court determination of mental illness
- discharge
- release for voluntary treatment
- conditional release
- commitment
- assisted outpatient treatment
- prohibition relating to firearms
- period of commitment
Source:
Section 426.130 — Court determination of mental illness; discharge; release for voluntary treatment; conditional release; commitment; assisted outpatient treatment; prohibition relating to firearms; period of commitment, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors426.html.
Notes of Decisions
Evidence was sufficient to find defendant mentally ill beyond reasonable doubt where he suffered from manic depressive psychosis, behaved in bizarre manner, and made threats of violence to others accompanied by violent acts. State v. Allmendinger, 36 Or App 381, 584 P2d 773 (1978)
Where one examining physician stated that petitioner was “probably” suffering from mental illness and another physician stated that petitioner suffered from a “psychosis,” without any further supporting evidence or explanation, this was not sufficient evidence upon which to base involuntary commitment order under this section. State v. Jepson, 48 Or App 411, 617 P2d 284 (1980)
A Court is not forbidden to commit a person simply because he has submitted himself voluntarily to treatment. State v. Kerrigan, 67 Or App 399, 678 P2d 271 (1984)
That person is mentally ill must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; that is, truth of acts asserted must be “highly probable.” State v. Waites, 71 Or App 366, 692 P2d 654 (1984)
Where defendant testified he would stay at YMCA or motel, had been eating at local hospital cafeteria, had some money and was looking for work and apartment and state did not provide any evidence to contradict such testimony, there was lack of clear and convincing evidence to show defendant dangerous to self or others or unable to provide for his basic needs. State v. Garibbo, 77 Or App 321, 713 P2d 671 (1986)
Where defendant made threats of violence to members of his family, treated his sister violently and roughly and two examining mental health professionals disagreed as to whether defendant was a danger to himself or others, defendant’s conduct and statements provides clear and convincing evidence that he is dangerous to others. State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194, 738 P2d 607 (1987)
Where “mental health examiner” examined appellant as part of commitment after attorney told examiner appellant did not wish to speak with him, and at trial appellant moved to suppress all evidence obtained during interview, and trial court denied motion on de novo review excluding examiner’s report and observations, remaining evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that statutory criteria for commitment was met. State of Oregon v. Haller, 95 Or App 752, 770 P2d 615 (1989)
Where only evidence of danger to himself was single automobile accident, order committing appellant to Mental Health Division was reversed. State v. Siebold, 100 Or App 365, 786 P2d 219 (1990)
This section in prohibiting mentally ill person from possessing firearm does not violate right to bear arms under Oregon Constitution, Art. I, sec. 27. State v. Owenby, 111 Or App 270, 826 P2d 51 (1992)
This section requires trial court to review findings of examining persons in determining whether person is mentally ill, but does not bind court to findings or require court to explain why it rejects those findings. State v. Evjen, 111 Or App 368, 826 P2d 92 (1992)
Court need not release person who provides evidence of willingness to participate voluntarily in treatment if court does not find that person “will probably do so.” State v. Doe, 116 Or App 18, 840 P2d 727 (1992)
Mental illness was demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence where: Defendant was seriously malnourished when not under doctor’s care; she had no credible plan to acquire adequate nutrition in future, minimized danger faced from malnutrition and had history of failing to follow through with plans for care; she had no family or friends who would assist her. State v. Johnson, 117 Or App 237, 843 P2d 985 (1992)
Where court had ample evidence that delusional person would commit violent acts in future, specific acts of past violence were not required to establish that person was dangerous. State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548, 853 P2d 841 (1993)
Proper standard of proof in dispositional phase of mental commitment proceeding is preponderance of evidence. State v. Brenhuber, 146 Or App 719, 934 P2d 550 (1997)
Where person criminally liable for past acts has mental disorder that includes impaired impulse control, person may fall within narrow group of persons subject to both criminal system and civil commitment system. State v. Gibson, 187 Or App 207, 66 P3d 560 (2003), Sup Ct review denied
Court authority to prohibit person from purchasing or possessing firearms does not allow court to order seizure and disposal of firearms. State v. Gifford, 200 Or App 40, 113 P3d 445 (2005)
Clear and convincing evidence person is dangerous to self means evidence demonstrating high probability of current, actual threat to life arising out of person’s mental disorder. State v. C.R., 216 Or App 395, 173 P3d 836 (2007); State v. N.A.P., 216 Or App 432, 173 P3d 1251 (2007)
During dispositional phase of mental commitment proceeding, mentally ill person bears burden of proving that he or she is willing to participate in voluntary treatment and will probably do so. State v. T.M., 229 Or App 325, 211 P3d 359 (2009)
Intellectual disability is not mental illness for purposes of prohibition of person with mental illness from purchasing or possessing firearm. State v. A.W. (In re A.W.), 298 Or App 823, 445 P3d 938 (2019)
Attorney General Opinions
Mental Health Division recognition of commitment order issued by Indian tribal court, (1970) Vol 40, p 31
Law Review Citations
26 WLR 566 (1990)
Up to date