State v. M.M.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Commitment
  • Date Filed: 10-04-2017
  • Case #: A162483
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, P.J. for the Court; DeHoog, J. & Aoyagi, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The purpose of ORS 426.100(1) is to provide a person facing a civil commitment the benefits of a full and fair hearing. Due to the nature of a civil commitment, a court’s failure to provide a person with information in accordance with ORS 426.100(1) is subject to plain error review. State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 569, 303 P3d 954 (2013).

Appellant appealed from a judgment in a civil commitment case that committed him to the Mental Health Division. On appeal, Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to advise him of the possible outcomes of the proceeding pursuant to ORS 426.100(1). In particular, Appellant argued that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to inform him of the options of voluntary treatment or conditional release. The State in turn argued that the court properly advised the appellant of the possible outcomes of the commitment hearing, thus not subject to plain error review. The purpose of ORS 426.100(1) is to provide a person facing a civil commitment the benefits of a full and fair hearing. Due to the nature of a civil commitment, a court’s failure to provide a person with information in accordance with ORS 426.100(1) is subject to plain error review. State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 569, 303 P3d 954 (2013). The Court of Appeals agreed with Appellant and held that although, the trial court is mandated to give general and understandable information about the potential outcomes of the hearing, that information must include all potential outcomes. The Court further held that included in all potential outcomes is voluntary treatment options, and conditional release outcomes to fully allow a person to appropriately protect his or her interest in order to obtain a full and fair hearing. Reversed.

Advanced Search