Legal Opinion
State v. Kerrigan
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided March 21, 1984No. 16907; CA A27776PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.
Defendant appeals an order of commitment. We review de novo, State v. O’Neill, 21A Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976), to determine whether there was “clear and convincing evidence” that defendant was “mentally ill” and was properly committed. ORS 426.130. We affirm.
“Clear and convincing” means the “truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” State v. Sterzicg, 47 Or App 621, 614 P2d 631 (1980). Under ORS 426.005(2), a “mentally ill person” is:
“* * * a person who, because of a mental disorder, is either:
“(a) Dangerous to himself or others; or
“(b) Unable to provide for his basic personal needs and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Neill v. O'NeillOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Matter of SterzicgCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
- State v. AdairCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. EvjenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- State v. BrenhuberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- State v. EvjenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992