State v. R. R. M.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. R. M.

484 P.3d 408, 310 Or. App. 380

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 31, 2021

DocketA174454

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 484 P.3d 408 (State v. R. R. 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. R. R. M., 484 P.3d 408, 310 Or. App. 380 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted March 5, reversed March 31, 2021

In the Matter of R. R. M., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. R. M., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 20CC04706; A174454 484 P3d 408

Jason R. Thomas, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 310 Or App 380 (2021) 381

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise her of her right pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) to subpoena wit- nesses. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. As we have held in numerous cases, failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See generally State v. B. O., 276 Or App 604, 605, 368 P3d 82 (2016) (citing cases). Given the nature of civil com- mitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

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

Submitted March 5, reversed March 31, 2021

In the Matter of R. R. M., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. R. M., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 20CC04706; A174454 484 P3d 408

Jason R. Thomas, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 310 Or App 380 (2021) 381

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise her of her right pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) to subpoena wit- nesses. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. As we have held in numerous cases, failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See generally State v. B. O., 276 Or App 604, 605, 368 P3d 82 (2016) (citing cases). Given the nature of civil com- mitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 408, 310 Or. App. 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-r-m-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack