Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. J. G.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

• Citations: 347 Or. App. 697
• Docket Number: A187413
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Affirmed.

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

No. 192 March 11, 2026 697

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 J. G.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
J. G.,
Appellant.
Lane County Circuit Court
25CC01876; A187413
Debra E. Velure, Judge.
Submitted February 19, 2026.
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
the brief for appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Rebecca M. Auten,
Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge,
and Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
698 State v. J. G.

PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals a judgment of civil commitment.
The trial court ordered that appellant be committed to the
custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to
exceed 180 days, based on appellant being a “person with
mental illness.” ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) (2023), amended by Or
Laws 2025, ch 559, § 5.1 Specifically, appellant was found
to be a danger to self as a result of a mental disorder. ORS
426.005(1)(f)(A) (2023), amended by Or Laws 2025, ch 559,
§ 4. The judgment also notifies appellant that he is pro-
hibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm unless he
obtains relief from the Psychiatric Security Review Board.
See ORS 166.273.
To meet the legal standard for a danger-to-self com-
mitment, the state must prove that a person has a mental
disorder that “would cause [the person] to engage in behav-
ior that is likely to result in physical harm to [themself] in
the near term.” State v. M. T., 308 Or App 448, 452, 479
P3d 541 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The
threat of physical harm must be serious—that is, it must
be life-threatening or involve some inherently dangerous
activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It must
“be more than speculative”—that is, “the evidence of such a
threat must be particularized, demonstrating a highly prob-
able risk of harm in the near future.” Id. (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). The danger also must be caused by the
mental disorder, not merely coincide with it. State v. S. G.,
338 Or App 6, 15-16, 565 P3d 49 (2025).
We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court’s dis-
position and determine whether the evidence was legally
sufficient to support civil commitment. State v. L. R., 283
Or App 618, 619, 391 P3d 880 (2017). Whether it was legally
sufficient is a question of law. State v. A. D. S., 258 Or App
44, 45, 308 P3d 365 (2013). “Ultimately, in view of the clear-
and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in
civil commitment proceedings, the question for us as the
1
New civil commitment standards became operative on January 1, 2026. Or
Laws 2025, ch 559, § 66. Appellant was committed under the older version of the
statutes, so the new standards are not at issue in this case.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 697 (2026) 699

reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have
found that it was highly probable that appellant was a dan-
ger to [themself]” as a result of a mental disorder. State v.
S. A. R., 308 Or App 365, 366, 479 P3d 618 (2021) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Having reviewed the record and considered the par-
ties’ arguments, we conclude that the evidence was legally
sufficient for civil commitment based on danger to self. The
trial court findings included that at the time of the hearing,
appellant was a danger to himself, did not fully understand
the gravity of his mental illness, and would not be capable
of voluntarily participating in the level of care he required.
Accordingly, the trial court determined that commitment
was in appellant’s best interest. Each of the factual findings
is supported by evidence in the record, and that evidence
was legally sufficient to support the trial court’s ultimate
disposition. State v. M. J. F., 306 Or App 544, 545, 473 P3d
1141 (2020).
Affirmed.