State v. S. W.

344 Or. App. 579

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: A186783
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 946 October 29, 2025 579

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of S. W., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. S. W., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 25CC00769; A186783

Stephen W. Morgan, Judge. Submitted September 12, 2025. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed. 580 State v. S. W.

LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered the judg- ment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder and because of that disorder, is dangerous to self and others and is not able to provide for his basic per- sonal needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A), (B). We reverse.1 In a single assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise appel- lant of the right to subpoena witnesses as required by ORS 426.100(1)(d). The state concedes the error and that reversal is warranted. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. R. R. M., 310 Or App 380, 381, 484 P3d 408 (2021) (failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. Id. Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.