State v. B. A. F.

Pursuant to ORS 425.100(1), during a civil commitment hearing, a person alleged to have a mental illness shall be advised as to the: "reason for being brought before the court"; "nature of the proceedings"; "possible results of the hearing"; "right to subpoena witnesses"; and "the person’s rights regarding representation by counsel."

Appellant appealed a trial court judgment that placed him under the state's jurisdiction, viz. a civil commitment order. Appellant assigned plain error to the trial court's failure to inform him of the "possible outcomes of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1)". On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him as to "the possibility of voluntary treatment or conditional release." In response, State argued that the issue was moot since the civil commitment period had terminated. Alternatively, State  argued that the trial court did not err in "advising appellant of the possible results of the commitment hearing." Pursuant to ORS 425.100(1), during a civil commitment hearing, a person alleged to have a mental illness shall be advised as to the: "reason for being brought before the court"; "nature of the proceedings"; "possible results of the hearing"; "right to subpoena witnesses"; and "the person’s rights regarding representation by counsel." The Court of Appeals declined to address the issue of mootness as this question is currently pending before the Oregon Supreme Court. Additionally, the Court held that, based upon its recent holding in State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111 (2017), the trial court's failure to advise Appellant as to the pertinent possible outcomes constituted plain error. Reversed.