426.100 Advice
of court; appointment of legal counsel; costs; representation of state’s
interest. (1) At
the time the person alleged to have a mental illness and to be in need of
treatment is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the
following:
(a) The reason
for being brought before the court;
(b) The nature of
the proceedings;
(c) The possible
results of the proceedings;
(d) The right to
subpoena witnesses; and
(e) The person’s
rights regarding representation by or appointment of counsel.
(2) Subsection
(3) of this section establishes the rights of persons alleged to have a mental
illness and to be in need of treatment in each of the following circumstances:
(a) When the
person is held by warrant of detention issued under ORS 426.070.
(b) In commitment
hearings under ORS 426.095.
(c) When the
person is detained as provided under ORS 426.228, 426.232 or 426.233.
(d) In
recommitment hearings under ORS 426.307.
(3) When provided
under subsection (2) of this section, a person alleged to have a mental illness
and to be in need of treatment has the following rights relating to
representation by or appointment of counsel:
(a) The right to
obtain suitable legal counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate
with the nature of the allegations and complexity of the case during the
proceedings.
(b) If the person
is determined to be financially eligible for appointed counsel at state
expense, the court will appoint legal counsel to represent the person. If
counsel is appointed at state expense, payment of expenses and compensation
relating to legal counsel shall be made as provided under ORS 426.311.
(c) If the person
does not request legal counsel, a legal guardian, relative or friend may
request the assistance of suitable legal counsel on behalf of the person.
(d) If no request
for legal counsel is made, the court shall appoint suitable legal counsel
unless counsel is expressly, knowingly and intelligently refused by the person.
(e) If the person
is being involuntarily detained before a hearing on the issue of commitment,
the right under paragraph (a) of this subsection to contact legal counsel or
under paragraph (b) of this subsection to have legal counsel appointed may be
exercised as soon as reasonably possible.
(f) In all cases
suitable legal counsel shall be present at the hearing and may be present at
examination and may examine all witnesses offering testimony, and otherwise
represent the person.
(4) When the
court is required to appoint counsel for a person under ORS 426.005 to 426.390,
the court shall appoint suitable legal counsel for the person unless:
(a) The person is
already represented by legal counsel; or
(b) The person
expressly, knowingly and intelligently refuses appointment of legal counsel.
(5) The
responsibility for representing the state’s interest in commitment proceedings,
including, but not limited to, preparation of the state’s case and appearances
at commitment hearings is as follows:
(a) The Attorney
General’s office shall have the responsibility relating to proceedings
initiated by state hospital staff that are any of the following:
(A) Recommitment
proceedings under ORS 426.307; or
(B) Proceedings
under ORS 426.228, 426.232 or 426.233.
(b) The district
attorney if requested to do so by the governing body of the county.
(c) In lieu of
the district attorney under paragraph (b) of this subsection, a counsel
designated by the governing body of a county shall take the responsibility. A
county governing body may designate counsel to take responsibility under this
paragraph either for single proceedings or for all such proceedings the county
will be obligated to pay for under ORS 426.311. If a county governing body
elects to proceed under this paragraph, the county governing body shall so
notify the district attorney. The expenses of an attorney appointed under this
paragraph shall be paid as provided under ORS 426.311. [Amended by 1967 c.458 §1;
1971 c.368 §2; 1973 c.838 §6; 1975 c.690 §6; 1977 c.259 §1; 1979 c.574 §§1,2;
1979 c.867 §10; 1981 s.s. c.3 §133; 1987 c.903 §14; 1993 c.484 §17; 2001 c.962 §57;
2013 c.360 §24; 2025 c.559 §12]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
248
cases (
69 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case:
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 76× “Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 38× “That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
State v. M. L. R., 303 P.3d 954 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 14× “Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment, arguing, among other things, that the trial court violated ORS 426.100(1), which requires trial courts to provide allegedly mentally ill persons with certain information before civil commitment hearings.”
State v. Burge, 1 P.3d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 50× “On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining him to be chronically mentally ill, because he was not interviewed by a mental health investigator before the commitment hearing.”
State v. T. C., 536 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “There, we reversed an order of civil commitment where the appellant’s lawyer purported to waive the reading of rights required by ORS 426.100 on the appellant’s behalf. Id.”
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 16× “ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
State v. MT, 258 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 27× “Appellant assigns error to the trial court's failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
State v. S. J. F., 269 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 43× “ORS 426.100 provides, in part: “(1) At the time the allegedly mentally ill person is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following: “(a) The reason for being brought before the court; “(b) The nature of the proceedings; “(c) The possible results of…”
State v. Y. B. (In re Y. B.), 439 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “He seeks reversal, arguing that he was not advised by *1037 the trial court of certain rights and information as required by ORS 426.100(1). 1 Although he did not preserve his claim of error, he argues that we should review it as plain error.”
State v. B. A. F. (In re B. A. F.), 414 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 7× “On appeal, he asserts that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of possible outcomes of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1). 1 In response, the state asserts that, because appellant's 180-day commitment period has expired, we should dismiss the appeal…”
State v. M. T., 232 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 26× “Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
State v. J. R. S., 539 P.3d 341 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “]”1 As appellant points out, we have held that “failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egre- gious error that justifies plain error review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(1) — 161 cases
State v. M. L. R., 303 P.3d 954 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment, arguing, among other things, that the trial court violated ORS 426.100(1), which requires trial courts to provide allegedly mentally ill persons with certain information before civil commitment hearings.”
State v. Burge, 1 P.3d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining him to be chronically mentally ill, because he was not interviewed by a mental health investigator before the commitment hearing.”
State v. S. J. F., 269 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“ORS 426.100 provides, in part: “(1) At the time the allegedly mentally ill person is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following: “(a) The reason for being brought before the court; “(b) The nature of the proceedings; “(c) The possible results of…”
State v. T. C., 536 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“There, we reversed an order of civil commitment where the appellant’s lawyer purported to waive the reading of rights required by ORS 426.100 on the appellant’s behalf. Id.”
State v. MT, 258 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court's failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. B. A. F. (In re B. A. F.), 414 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“On appeal, he asserts that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of possible outcomes of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1). 1 In response, the state asserts that, because appellant's 180-day commitment period has expired, we should dismiss the appeal…”
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
State v. MT, 258 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court's failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(1)(c) — 38 cases
State v. J. R. S., 539 P.3d 341 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“]”1 As appellant points out, we have held that “failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egre- gious error that justifies plain error review.”
State v. MT, 258 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court's failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
State v. B. A. F. (In re B. A. F.), 414 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“On appeal, he asserts that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of possible outcomes of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1). 1 In response, the state asserts that, because appellant's 180-day commitment period has expired, we should dismiss the appeal…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(1)(d) — 13 cases
State v. MT, 258 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court's failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(1)(e) — 1 case
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(2) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(3) — 12 cases
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
State v. Burge, 1 P.3d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining him to be chronically mentally ill, because he was not interviewed by a mental health investigator before the commitment hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(3)(a) — 9 cases
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
State v. Burge, 1 P.3d 490 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining him to be chronically mentally ill, because he was not interviewed by a mental health investigator before the commitment hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(3)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(3)(d) — 4 cases
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(3)(e) — 14 cases
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(3)(f) — 5 cases
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 426.100 is silent on that issue, with one exception.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(5) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(D) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(l) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Buffum, 999 P.2d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process.”
State v. M. T., 232 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(l)(c) — 7 cases
State v. M. T., 232 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(l)(d) — 13 cases
State v. M. T., 232 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
State v. S. J. F., 269 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“ORS 426.100 provides, in part: “(1) At the time the allegedly mentally ill person is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following: “(a) The reason for being brought before the court; “(b) The nature of the proceedings; “(c) The possible results of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.100(l)(e) — 4 cases
State v. Cach, 19 P.3d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant argues that the court's judgment should be reversed because the court failed to advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100. We affirm. *993 On March 11, 1999, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant.”
State v. M. T., 232 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Appellant assigns error to the trial court’s failure to provide him with information as required by ORS 426.100(1). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error and reverse.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.