State v. Cook

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cook

79 P.3d 373, 190 Or. App. 568, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1532

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 13, 2003

Docket02-03-63124; A117801

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 P.3d 373 (State v. Cook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cook, 79 P.3d 373, 190 Or. App. 568, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1532 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from a judgment that civilly committed her on the basis that she was dangerous to others. ORS 426.130. On appeal, she asserts that the trial court erred in denying her attorney’s motion for a set-over, erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that she was a danger to others, and erred in finding that she was unwilling, unable, or unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with treatment. The state concedes error on all issues. As explained below, we accept those concessions and reverse.

ORS 426.095(2)(c) provides that a hearing may be postponed for good cause if requested by counsel. Counsel here told the court that he had been appointed to represent appellant the day before the hearing and had not yet had an opportunity to contact witnesses. A decision on whether to postpone a hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Under these circumstances, an abuse of discretion is shown; appellant’s attorney offered a valid reason for a postponement, the state did not oppose it, and the court denied it for no apparent reason.

The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that appellant is dangerous to others, is dangerous to herself or unable to meet her basic needs, or is unwilling, unable, or unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with treatment.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from a judgment that civilly committed her on the basis that she was dangerous to others. ORS 426.130. On appeal, she asserts that the trial court erred in denying her attorney’s motion for a set-over, erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that she was a danger to others, and erred in finding that she was unwilling, unable, or unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with treatment. The state concedes error on all issues. As explained below, we accept those concessions and reverse.

ORS 426.095(2)(c) provides that a hearing may be postponed for good cause if requested by counsel. Counsel here told the court that he had been appointed to represent appellant the day before the hearing and had not yet had an opportunity to contact witnesses. A decision on whether to postpone a hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Under these circumstances, an abuse of discretion is shown; appellant’s attorney offered a valid reason for a postponement, the state did not oppose it, and the court denied it for no apparent reason.

The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that appellant is dangerous to others, is dangerous to herself or unable to meet her basic needs, or is unwilling, unable, or unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with treatment.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 P.3d 373, 190 Or. App. 568, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cook-orctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack