Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. K.M. (In re K.M.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 19, 2014

In the Matter of K. M., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
v.
K. M., Appellant

June 04, 2014, Submitted

C120018MC. Washington County Circuit Court. James Lee Fun, Jr., Judge.

Reversed.

Susan D. Isaacs filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Pamela J. Walsh, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.

OPINION

Page 122

[267 Or.App. 2] SERCOMBE, P. J.

Following a hearing, appellant was determined to be mentally ill on the grounds that she was dangerous to herself and others because of a mental disorder. ORS 426.130.[1] On appeal, appellant contends that the court plainly erred in failing to sufficiently advise her of her rights under ORS 426.100(1). The state responds that the court did not plainly err because some of the required advice was given, and appellant was otherwise advised by her counsel about the nature of the proceedings. We agree with appellant that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise her of all of her rights under ORS 426.100(1), and the record does not demonstrate that the harm was mitigated by appellant's counsel's actions. We exercise our discretion to correct the error and reverse the judgment of commitment. Because we reverse the judgment on that basis, we do not address appellant's assignment of error on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the involuntary commitment.

The procedural facts necessary to frame the issue on appeal are few. Appellant suffered a traumatic brain injury when she was 16 years old and, in the succeeding years, has had short-term memory loss, extreme mood disorders, and behavioral problems. She has

Page 123

been hospitalized several times to treat her delusions and psychoses. She was placed in a hospital hold by a physician in early 2012 and cited to appear at a commitment hearing. The court appointed counsel for appellant on the day of the hearing and opened the proceeding with the following declarations:

" COURT: Okay. * * * [W]e're here for a hearing to decide what's in your best interest. The purpose of the hearing is to decide whether or not you suffer from a mental illness and if so what should happen as a result of that mental illness.
[267 Or.App. 3] " We're going to have a hearing and the State is going to present evidence through the attorneys to help me decide whether or not you have a mental illness and importantly what should happen because of that mental illness.
" After that evidence is presented by the State, you'll have the opportunity through your lawyer to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.