State v. K. S. D. M.

453 P.3d 636, 301 Or. App. 307
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedDecember 11, 2019
DocketA170853
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 P.3d 636 (State v. K. S. D. 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. K. S. D. M., 453 P.3d 636, 301 Or. App. 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Submitted November 1, reversed December 11, 2019

In the Matter of K. S. D. M., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. K. S. D. M., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 19CC01665; A170853 453 P3d 636

Jason R. Thomas, Judge pro tempore. Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 308 State v. K. S. D. M.

PER CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting her to the custody of the Oregon Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. She contends that the trial court erred in failing to advise her of her right to subpoena witnesses, as required by ORS 426.100(1). The state con- cedes the error. We agree that the error was plain error. See State v. Z. A. B., 264 Or App 779, 780, 334 P3d 480, adh’d to as modified on recons, 266 Or App 708, 338 P3d 802 (2014) (failure to inform an allegedly mentally ill person of the right to subpoena witnesses is plain error). We exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321, 325, 269 P3d 83 (2011) (“[P]lain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justi- fied by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the rela- tive interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice.”). Reversed.

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

Related

State v. Christiansen
453 P.3d 636 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 P.3d 636, 301 Or. App. 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-k-s-d-m-orctapp-2019.