State v. G. M.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. G. M.

337 P.3d 929, 266 Or. App. 223

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 8, 2014

Docket13MH0025; A154901

StatusPublished

This text of 337 P.3d 929 (State v. G. M.) 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. G. M., 337 P.3d 929, 266 Or. App. 223 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She contends, in her first assignment of error, that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to inform her of her right to subpoena witnesses as required by ORS 426.100(l)(d). The state concedes the error, and we agree that that failure constitutes plain error. See State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-71, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (failure to inform a person of the right to subpoena witnesses constitutes plain error warranting reversal). We further conclude, for the reasons articulated inM L. R., that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, we need not address appellant’s second assignment of error, in which she contends that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support an order of involuntary commitment.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She contends, in her first assignment of error, that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to inform her of her right to subpoena witnesses as required by ORS 426.100(l)(d). The state concedes the error, and we agree that that failure constitutes plain error. See State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-71, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (failure to inform a person of the right to subpoena witnesses constitutes plain error warranting reversal). We further conclude, for the reasons articulated inM L. R., that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, we need not address appellant’s second assignment of error, in which she contends that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support an order of involuntary commitment.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 P.3d 929, 266 Or. App. 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-g-m-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack