Case Name: In the Matter of A. S., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. A. S., Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2007-02-14
Citations: 211 Or. App. 100
Docket Number: 060261305; A131468
Parties: In the Matter of A. S., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. A. S., Appellant.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman and Ortega, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 211
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 8,
reversed February 14, 2007
In the Matter of A. S., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. A. S., Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
060261305; A131468
153 P3d 151
Laura Forester, Certified Law Student, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was Dianna J. Gentry.
Denise Fjordbeck, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman and Ortega, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this mental commitment case, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that he suffers from a mental disorder that renders him unable to provide for his basic needs. ORS 426.005(l)(d). On the merits, the state concedes that the evidence is insufficient to justify appellant's involuntary commitment. The state argues, however, that appellant never objected to the sufficiency of the evidence at his commitment hearing and that he "in effect stipulated to the commitment."
We disagree with the state's contention that appellant failed to preserve the claim of error or stipulated to his commitment. At the commitment hearing, appellant repeatedly stated that he did not want to go to the hospital. He also testified that hospitalization "won't do me any good" and asserted "there's no reason to put me in a hospital. I'm fine." Appellant's objections were sufficient to preserve the claim of error.
On de novo review, State v. Hitt, 179 Or App 563, 565, 41 P3d 434 (2002), we agree that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that appellant suffers from a mental disorder that renders him unable to provide for his basic needs.
Reversed.