State v. C. T.

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 an attorney or under paragraph (b) of this subsection to have an attorney appointment may be exercised as soon as reasonably possible. ORS 426.100(3)(e)

Appellant challenged a judgment that involuntarily committed him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority. He contended that under ORS 426.100(3)(e), the court was required to appoint counsel immediately after his emergency hold admission, and argued the court erred by delaying the appointment. Additionally, he claimed the court did not enforce the relevant statutes and rules regarding the mental health examiner's role in the commitment process and the examiner's report. “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 an attorney or under paragraph (b) of this subsection to have an attorney appointment may be exercised as soon as reasonably possible.” ORS 426.100(3)(e). The Court found that it was unclear under ORS 426.100(3)(e) that the court was obligated to appoint counsel immediately following an emergency hold. The Court reasoned that even assuming the court was required to appoint counsel “as soon as reasonably possible” after the hold, the record did not provide enough details to assess what was "reasonably possible". The Court also found for the appellant's second assignment of error no objection was raised or record made on the issue; thus, any error by the examiner was not "apparent on the record," meaning it was not plain and it must be sufficiently grave to justify the Court’s discretion. The Court affirmed the judgment.