State v. Zamora-Skaar

“As Mink made clear, due to Oregon’s statutory scheme, a voluntary non-compliance with a court order, hence, violating a defendant’s due process rights, cannot be blamed on “lack of funds, staff, facilities.” See Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F3d 1101, 1121 (9th Cir 2003).

Defendant was forced to stay at the state psychiatric hospital, breaking a court order which would force the hospital to assist him in gaining fitness to comply. The trial court found that Defendant “lack[ed] fitness to proceed” in his defense at trial and ordered to commit Defendant to Oregon State Hospital (OSH) for treatment to help him gain fitness. Defendant was left in jail beyond the compliance period and alleges that OSH violated the order. Defendant claims that OSH violated the order because OSH refused to provide an unoccupied hospital bed. OSH contends that the trial court incorrectly applied the law and that it was unable to comply with the court order due to lack of beds, staffing, and funding. “As Mink made clear, due to Oregon’s statutory scheme, a voluntary non-compliance with a court order, hence, violating a defendant’s due process  rights, cannot be blamed on “lack of funds, staff, facilities.” See Mink, 322 F3d at 1121. The Court disagreed with this argument because OSH’s witnesses stated that there was enough room at the hospital to assist patients like Defendant. The Court agreed with the trial court which stated, “OSH’s ‘voluntary noncompliance’ with the .370 order could not be excused by a lack of resources.” The Court concluded that OSH has not established that the trial court committed reversible error. Affirmed.