State v. S. J. C.

                                835

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
           Submitted August 5, reversed September 21, 2022


                 In the Matter of S. J. C.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                            v.
                         S. J. C.,
                        Appellant.
              Marion County Circuit Court
                  22CC00720; A178030

  Matthew L. Tracey, Judge pro tempore.
   Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
Joyce, Judge.
  JAMES, P. J.
  Reversed.
836                                            State v. S. J. C.

        JAMES, P. J.
          Appellant seeks reversal of an order involuntarily
committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period
not to exceed 180 days and an order prohibiting him from
purchasing or possessing firearms. Appellant argues that
the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of the
right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)(d). See
State v. Z. A. B., 

, 

, adh’d to
as modified on recons, 

, 

 (2014)
(failure to inform a person of the right to subpoena witnesses
constitutes plain error warranting reversal).
        The trial court began the civil commitment hearing
by informing appellant of his rights, including stating:
   “You also have the right to bring your own witnesses, so
   during this hearing you have a witness that you want to
   make sure is brought forth before this Court, you have the
   right to have Ms. Moody help you with that. If they aren’t
   available today, you could always have Ms. Moody ask
   for additional time so that you can bring those witnesses
   forward.”
        Our case law has held that a trial court’s statement
that an individual has the right to call his own witnesses
does not satisfy the requirement to inform him that he had
the right to compulsory process. Z. A. B., 

.
The state concedes that, under our case law, the trial court
plainly erred in that regard and that the error requires
reversal. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and, for the
reasons referenced in State v. M. L. R., 

, 

 (2013), exercise our discretion to correct the plain
error.
        Reversed.