State v. S.L.

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Civil Commitment
• Date Filed: 09-05-2024
• Case #: 22CC06115; A179744
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J.; Powers, J.; Hellman, J.
• Full Text Opinion

"[A]ppellant’s discharge on October 3 did not amount to a “sham” simply because Unity implemented it in a coordinated manner that took into account appellant’s acute psychosis and inability to care for his basic needs."

Appellant was civilly committed on 10/6/2022 following the issuing of two Notices of Mental Illness (NMI) alleging similar facts (9/26/2022 and 10/3/2022). Appellant appeals, arguing that the second NMI was an illegal extension of the first, which should have been dismissed after five judicial days had elapsed. However, the trial court found that he had a hearing on the first NMI on 10/3/2022, and was discharged from it. The Court reasoned that even though he was issued a new NMI on the same day as his discharge, it was not a “sham” simply because it was “implemented [in] a coordinated manner.” The Court held that the trial court did not err. Affirmed. 

Share Subscribe