State of Oregon v. M.P.

Under the 2017 Amendments to ORS 45.400, it is the “trial court’s decision whether to allow telephonic testimony in nonjury proceedings a matter of trial court discretion. Accordingly, when such a decision is challenged on appeal, [the Court] review[s] for abuse of discretion.”

M.P. was committed to the Mental Health Division’s custody by the trial court. M.P assigned error to the trial court allowing witnesses and experts to appear by phone. On appeal, M.P. argued that the Court should “review the trial court’s rulings allowing telephonic testimony for legal error,” and that the trial court need to “assess whether video transmission… would have been readily available” under ORS 45.400(4). The state contended that ORS 45.400(4) was not applicable to a commitment hearing. Under the 2017 Amendments to ORS 45.400, it is the “trial court’s decision whether to allow telephonic testimony in nonjury proceedings a matter of trial court discretion. Accordingly, when such a decision is challenged on appeal, [the Court] review[s] for abuse of discretion.” The Court found that the error challenged in this appeal was harmless. This is because the testimony allowed to occur by phone was “cumulative in material respects to other testimony admitted at trial.” Affirmed.