State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Murphy

934 P.2d 610, 146 Or. App. 772, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 206

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 5, 1997

DocketC960056MC; CA A94370

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 934 P.2d 610 (State v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 934 P.2d 610, 146 Or. App. 772, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 206 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant, an allegedly mentally ill person, appeals from a judgment of involuntary civil commitment. ORS 426.130(l)(b)(C). We reverse and remand.

The state concedes that the trial court’s failure to explain to appellant his right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)¹ constitutes reversible error. State v. Grellert, 144 Or App 201, 203, 925 P2d 161 (1996); see generally State v. Allison, 129 Or App 47, 877 P2d 660 (1994), and that the failure to preserve the error is not fatal because the error is apparent on the face of the record. State v. Tardanico, 132 Or App 230, 231, 888 P2d 15 (1994). We accept the state’s concessions and exercise our discretion to review the error. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82, 823 P2d 956 (1991). Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings.

In view of our disposition, it is unnecessary to address appellant’s other assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant, an allegedly mentally ill person, appeals from a judgment of involuntary civil commitment. ORS 426.130(l)(b)(C). We reverse and remand.

The state concedes that the trial court’s failure to explain to appellant his right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)¹ constitutes reversible error. State v. Grellert, 144 Or App 201, 203, 925 P2d 161 (1996); see generally State v. Allison, 129 Or App 47, 877 P2d 660 (1994), and that the failure to preserve the error is not fatal because the error is apparent on the face of the record. State v. Tardanico, 132 Or App 230, 231, 888 P2d 15 (1994). We accept the state’s concessions and exercise our discretion to review the error. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82, 823 P2d 956 (1991). Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings.

In view of our disposition, it is unnecessary to address appellant’s other assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 P.2d 610, 146 Or. App. 772, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murphy-orctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack