State v. J. J. S.

ORS 426.095(1) allows courts to balance patient convenience against judicial efficiency in civil commitment hearings, and ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D) constitutionally authorizes firearm prohibitions for dangerous individuals.

Appellant argued that the trial court erred by denying his request to hold the civil commitment hearing in a location convenient to him under ORS 426.095(1), and that his firearm prohibition was unconstitutional. Appellant was committed to the Mental Health Division because he had a mental disorder and posed a danger to others. Under ORS 426.095(1), a commitment hearing may be held in a location convenient to the court and the person alleged to have mental illness. Courts can use discretion to weigh the interests between the person with mental illness and the courts. Here, the court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding in the courthouse because not doing so would have significantly disrupted the proceedings. The objection was made the day of, there was statutory obligation to have the proceedings within five days, this objection was made on the third day. Postponing would have significantly disrupted the proceedings. Under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D), his gun prohibition is constitutional because there is a history and tradition of disarming mentally ill or people who pose a danger to themselves and others. Therefore, his constitutional challenge of the law fails.

Affirmed.