State v. K.J.B.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 12-14-2016
  • Case #: A160841
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; Wollheim, S.J.; & Duncan, P.J., dissenting.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under State v. Parkins, in close cases, whether an issue has been sufficiently preserved for appeal turns on whether the policies behind the rule, “e.g., procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court, judicial economy, and full development of the record,” have been sufficiently served.

Appellant appealed an order committing him to the Oregon Health Authority on the ground that he suffered from a mental disorder that made him dangerous to himself, dangerous to others, and unable to provide for his basic needs. At Appellant’s civil commitment hearing, Appellant’s counsel argued there was insufficient evidence to show that Appellant’s behavior was problematic enough to permit a conclusion that he was dangerous to himself or others, or unable to meet his own basic needs. The trial court disagreed, concluding that the State had established the requirements for commitment. On appeal, Appellant argued that because the State did not present evidence that he was about to be released from jail, the trial court erred in committing him on a “basic needs” basis, in light of State v. Jensen, 141 Or App 391 (1996). The State responded that Appellant’s claim of error was unpreserved. In close cases, whether an issue has been sufficiently preserved for appeal turns on whether the policies behind the rule, “e.g., procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court, judicial economy, and full development of the record,” have been sufficiently served. State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 340-41 (2009). Appellant’s argument at trial was focused on his behavior while out of jail, however, his argument on appeal asked the Court to conclude, regardless of his hazardous behavior, that his incarceration necessarily prevented the conclusion that he was unable to provide for his basic needs. Because Appellant did not raise that point at trial, the Court concluded the policies behind preservation of issues for appeal would not be sufficiently served if review were allowed. Thus, the Court declined to review Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Affirmed.  

Advanced Search