State v. W. B.

“Under the current version of [ORS 45.400]… the court’s decision whether to allow remote location testimony remains a matter of discretion, even when a witness’s testimony may be outcome-determinative.”

Appellant appeals a judgment that committed him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. In two assignments of error, Appellant argued the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify remotely at the commitment hearing, and that there was insufficient evidence for the court to find him a danger to others. The State filed a motion under ORS 45.400 the morning of the hearing requesting the treating psychiatrist be allowed to testify remotely because of the travel time and impact on the psychiatrist’s practice. Appellant argues the court impermissibly considered impact on third-parties when evaluating the hardship factor. “Under the current version of [ORS 45.400]… the court’s decision whether to allow remote location testimony remains a matter of discretion, even when a witness’s testimony may be outcome-determinative.” The Court reasoned that the impact to third-parties is an impact to the psychiatrist herself because those are her patients. The Court also reasoned there was little significant impact on its ability to assess the credibility of the psychiatrist because she would be appearing by video and the court could assess her demeanor. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining good cause outweighed any prejudice to the appellant in allowing the expert witness to testify by video at the commitment hearing. Affirmed.