State v. R. J. B.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: December 31, 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of R. J. B., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. J. B., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 14CC01134 A157295 Mark S. Schiveley, Senior Judge. Submitted on November 07, 2014. Charles Kochlacs filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. DESIGNATION OF PREVAILING PARTY AND AWARD OF COSTS Prevailing party: [ ] [ ] [ ] Appellant No costs allowed. Costs allowed, payable by Costs allowed, to abide the outcome on remand, payable by 1 PER CURIAM 2 Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him for a period not to 3 exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court committed plain error 4 when it failed to advise him of his right to subpoena witnesses. See ORS 426.100(1) 5 (providing that the court shall advise the person of, among other things, "[t]he right to 6 subpoena witnesses"). The state concedes that the court's failure constitutes plain error 7 and requires reversal. We agree, accept the state's concession, and conclude that it is 8 appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error for the reasons stated in 9 State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 303 P3d 954 (2013). See id. at 570-72 (observing that 10 "plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil 11 commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the 12 gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice" and exercising discretion to correct the 13 plain error (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because we reverse the judgment on that 14 basis, we do not address appellant's second and third assignments of error. 15 Reversed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
