State v. K. C. ( 2007 )

PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that, because of a mental disorder, he is a danger to himself or others and is unable to meet his basic needs. ORS 426.005(l)(d). The state concedes that the record does not contain the necessary clear and convincing evidence to support the order of involuntary commitment. On de novo review, we agree and accept the concession.

Reversed.