commitment hearing in Oregon

2010State v. Miller, 198 Or App 153, 155 , 107 P3d 683 (2005).

2010State v. Miller, 198 Or App 153, 155 , 107 P3d 683 (2005).

2007State v. North, 189 Or App 518, 520 , 76 P3d 685 (2003).

2007State v. North, 189 Or App 518, 520 , 76 P3d 685 (2003).

2011For example, in Ritzman , we held that the trial court's failure to comply with ORS 426.100(1) was harmless where, before the commitment hearing, a written "Notice of Intent to Continue Commitment" that contained all of the information specified in ORS 426.100(1) was delivered to, read to, and signed by the appellant. 192 Or.App. at 300-01 , 84 P.3d 1129 .

2011For example, in Ritzman , we held that the trial court’s failure to comply with ORS 426.100(1) was harmless where, before the commitment hearing, a written “Notice of Intent to Continue Commitment” that contained all of the information specified in ORS 426.100(1) was delivered to, read to, and signed by the appellant. 192 Or App at 300-01 .

2024Therefore, as in S. R.-N., we decline to exercise any discretion that we have to correct the error, because we conclude that it did not result “in a commitment hearing that was less than full and fair.” S. R.-N., 318 Or App at 158 .

2024P., 334 Or App 320, 325 , 556 P3d 660 (2024). “[A]s in S. R.-N., we decline to exercise any discretion that we have to correct the error, because we conclude that it did not result ‘in a commitment hearing that was less than full and fair.’ ” Id. (quoting S. R.-N., 318 Or App at 158 ).

2008Lott, 202 Or.App. at 335 , 122 P.3d 97 .

2008Lott, 202 Or App at 335 .

2026Id. at 859-60 ; see ORS 426.130 (describ- ing what may be ordered after a commitment hearing).

2026Id. at 859-60 ; see ORS 426.130 (describ- ing what may be ordered after a commitment hearing).

2026The nature of the information filed concerning you and the specific reasons you are believed to be mentally ill are described in a copy of the notice of men- tal illness, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.” Cite as 346 Or App 414 (2026) 417 (Emphasis added.) The remaining paragraphs provided the date, time, and location of the commitment hearing; notified appellant of certain rights; and stated that the citation had been issued and served pursuant to a court order.

2026The nature of the information filed concerning you and the specific reasons you are believed to be mentally ill are described in a copy of the notice of men- tal illness, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.” Cite as 346 Or App 414 (2026) 417 (Emphasis added.) The remaining paragraphs provided the date, time, and location of the commitment hearing; notified appellant of certain rights; and stated that the citation had been issued and served pursuant to a court order.

2026Accordingly, Cite as 350 Or App 608 (2026) 615 we conclude that the citation did not state the “specific rea- sons” that appellant was believed to be a person with mental illness under ORS 426.090.

2026Accordingly, we conclude that the citation did not state the “specific reasons” Cite as 350 Or App 608 (2026) 615 that appellant was believed to be a person with mental ill- ness under ORS 426.090.

2025B., 240 Or App 75, 77 , 245 P3d 697 (2010) (internal quotation marks and cita- tions omitted).

2025B., 240 Or App 75, 77 , 245 P3d 697 (2010) (internal quotation marks and cita- tions omitted).

2025T., 333 Or App 718, 719-21 , 553 P3d 1070 (2024) (concluding that, when the appellant was placed on an emer- gency hold on Saturday, the trial court appointed counsel the following Friday, and the commitment hearing was held the following Monday, any error in appointing counsel on Friday was not plain because the alleged error was not obvious and was not apparent on the record).

2025T., 333 Or App 718, 719-21 , 553 P3d 1070 (2024) (concluding that, when the appellant was placed on an emer- gency hold on Saturday, the trial court appointed counsel the following Friday, and the commitment hearing was held the following Monday, any error in appointing counsel on Friday was not plain because the alleged error was not obvious and was not apparent on the record).

2025Appellant acknowledges that he did not preserve the purported errors, and he requests that we review for Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 429 (2025) 431 plain error whether the trial court erred in conducting the commitment hearing and committing appellant despite the described procedural errors.

2025Appellant acknowledges that he did not preserve the purported errors, and he requests that we review for Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 429 (2025) 431 plain error whether the trial court erred in conducting the commitment hearing and committing appellant despite the described procedural errors.

2025We agree with the State and conclude that the “extensive experience” each of the other three mental health Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 572 (2025) 575 experts had with appellant, coupled with their unanimous conclusions that appellant fit the statutory requirements for expanded criteria, sufficed to support affirming the trial court’s finding that appellant be committed pursuant to ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C).

2025We agree with the State and conclude that the “extensive experience” each of the other three mental health Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 572 (2025) 575 experts had with appellant, coupled with their unanimous conclusions that appellant fit the statutory requirements for expanded criteria, sufficed to support affirming the trial court’s finding that appellant be committed pursuant to ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C).

2024P., 334 Or App 320, 325 , 556 P3d 660 (2024). “[A]s in S. R.-N., we decline to exercise any discretion that we have to correct the error, because we conclude that it did not result ‘in a commitment hearing that was less than full and fair.’ ” Id. (quoting S. R.-N., 318 Or App at 158 ).

2024P., 334 Or App 320, 325 , 556 P3d 660 (2024). “[A]s in S. R.-N., we decline to exercise any discretion that we have to correct the error, because we conclude that it did not result ‘in a commitment hearing that was less than full and fair.’ ” Id. (quoting S. R.-N., 318 Or App at 158 ).

2011A. J., 230 Or.App. 224 , 231 n.5, 213 P.3d 1279 (2009) (quoting State v. Headings, 140 Or.App. 421, 426 , 914 P.2d 1129 (1996)).

2011A. J., 230 Or.App. 224 , 231 n.5, 213 P.3d 1279 (2009) (quoting State v. Headings, 140 Or.App. 421, 426 , 914 P.2d 1129 (1996)).

2011A. J., 230 Or.App. 224 , 231 n.5, 213 P.3d 1279 (2009) (quoting State v. Headings, 140 Or.App. 421, 426 , 914 P.2d 1129 (1996)).

2011A. J., 230 Or.App. 224 , 231 n.5, 213 P.3d 1279 (2009) (quoting State v. Headings, 140 Or.App. 421, 426 , 914 P.2d 1129 (1996)).

2011In contrast, in State v. Scharf, 201 Or App 71, 74 , 116 P3d 949 (2005), we held that the trial court’s failure to comply with ORS 426.100(1) was not harmless where the allegedly mentally ill person had received a written “Citation for Commitment Hearing” that contained information similar to that specified in ORS 426.100(1) but had not signed it.

2011In contrast, in State v. Scharf, 201 Or App 71, 74 , 116 P3d 949 (2005), we held that the trial court’s failure to comply with ORS 426.100(1) was not harmless where the allegedly mentally ill person had received a written “Citation for Commitment Hearing” that contained information similar to that specified in ORS 426.100(1) but had not signed it.

2007Hitt, 179 Or.App. at 566 n. 4, 41 P.3d 434 .

2007Hitt, 179 Or App at 566 n 4.

2005In State v. Bunting, 112 Or App 143, 145 , 826 P2d 1060 (1992), we explained: “The legislature’s Tasic needs’ commitment standard focuses on the capacity of the individual to survive, either through his own resources or with the help of family or friends.

2005In State v. Bunting, 112 Or App 143, 145 , 826 P2d 1060 (1992), we explained: “The legislature’s Tasic needs’ commitment standard focuses on the capacity of the individual to survive, either through his own resources or with the help of family or friends.

2026ORS 426.130 describes the possible results of a commitment hearing, and the court ordering a person found to be men- tally ill to participate in outpatient treatment is not one of Cite as 350 Or App 404 (2026) 413 them.

2026One of the requirements for an error to be “plain” is that it must be “apparent on the record without requir- ing [us] to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 , 317 P3d 889 (2013).

2026One of the requirements for an error to be “plain” is that it must be “apparent on the record without requir- ing [us] to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 , 317 P3d 889 (2013).

2024That appellant “did not appear suicidal Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 410 (2024) 413 at the commitment hearing” does not alter that conclusion.

2024D., 315 Or App 316, 321 , 499 P3d 113 (2021).

2024D., 315 Or App 316, 321 , 499 P3d 113 (2021).

2024Appellant’s behavior prior and up to the commitment hearing provided the trial court sufficient evidence to determine that appellant was “highly likely to engage in future violence toward others, absent commitment[,]” S. E., 313 Or App at 682 , particularly as it could have found that appellant’s conduct was “esca- lating toward violence.” State v. J.

2024Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 620 (2024) 623 Second, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in holding the commitment hearing and committing appellant when there was no evidence that appellant was warned about observation by medical staff pursuant to ORS 426.123(1).

2024ORAP 5.45(1) Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 16 (2024) 19 (allowing discretionary review of “plain” errors).