State v. Russ

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Russ

987 P.2d 529, 161 Or. App. 660, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1225

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 7, 1999

Docket984950; CA A103960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 987 P.2d 529 (State v. Russ) 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. Russ, 987 P.2d 529, 161 Or. App. 660, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant, an allegedly mentally ill person, appeals from a judgment involuntarily committing him to the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. We reverse.

While appellant does not assign as error the trial court’s failure to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100, the state nonetheless acknowledges that the court failed to properly explain to appellant his right to subpoena witnesses. ORS 426.100(l)(d). We have previously held that the failure to advise an allegedly mentally ill person of that person’s right to subpoena witnesses is reviewable as error apparent on the face of the record. State v. Murphy, 146 Or App 772, 773, 934 P2d 610 (1997). We so hold in this case as well.

Reversed.

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 involuntarily committing him to the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. We reverse.

While appellant does not assign as error the trial court’s failure to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100, the state nonetheless acknowledges that the court failed to properly explain to appellant his right to subpoena witnesses. ORS 426.100(l)(d). We have previously held that the failure to advise an allegedly mentally ill person of that person’s right to subpoena witnesses is reviewable as error apparent on the face of the record. State v. Murphy, 146 Or App 772, 773, 934 P2d 610 (1997). We so hold in this case as well.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 P.2d 529, 161 Or. App. 660, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-russ-orctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack