State v. Loehline

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Loehline

804 P.2d 1226, 105 Or. App. 623, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 205

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 13, 1991

Docket900596049; CA A65478

StatusPublished

This text of 804 P.2d 1226 (State v. Loehline) 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. Loehline, 804 P.2d 1226, 105 Or. App. 623, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 205 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this civil commitment proceeding, the allegedly mentally ill person assigns as error the trial court’s finding that she knowingly and intelligently refused her right to court appointed counsel. ORS 426.100(3) (d). The trial court never advised her on the record of her right to counsel or made a sufficient inquiry to determine whether she was knowingly and intelligently refusing counsel. We accept the state’s concession that that was error.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this civil commitment proceeding, the allegedly mentally ill person assigns as error the trial court’s finding that she knowingly and intelligently refused her right to court appointed counsel. ORS 426.100(3) (d). The trial court never advised her on the record of her right to counsel or made a sufficient inquiry to determine whether she was knowingly and intelligently refusing counsel. We accept the state’s concession that that was error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 P.2d 1226, 105 Or. App. 623, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-loehline-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack