Categories: Oregon Court of Appeals Opinions

STATE v. SCHUSTER, 112 Or. App. 317 (1992)

829 P.2d 93

In the Matter of Rosetta Schuster, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROSETTA SCHUSTER, Appellant.

9109-97022; CA A71597Oregon Court of Appeals.Submitted on record and briefs March 13, 1992
Reversed April 8, 1992

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Charles B. Guinasso, Judge pro tempore.

Gregg T. Sylvester, Portland, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed.

Page 318

PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, the state concedes that the trial court erred in finding appellant to be a mentally ill person within the meaning of ORS 426.005(2). Nonetheless, we are required to conduct a de novo review.

On the basis of that review, we agree with the state: “This is one of those cases where the relationship between [the] appellant’s medical condition and her emotional lability[1] cannot be gleaned from [the] record.”

Reversed.

[1] Yes, lability, or the state of being labile: “[R]eadily or continually undergoing chemical or physical or biological change or breakdown.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1259 (unabridged 1971).

Page 319

jdjungle