State v. S. W.

No. 946              October 29, 2025                  579

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                   In the Matter of S. W.,
          a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                   STATE OF OREGON,
                        Respondent,
                              v.
                           S. W.,
                         Appellant.
                Lane County Circuit Court
                   25CC00769; A186783

  Stephen W. Morgan, Judge.
  Submitted September 12, 2025.
   Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Reversed.
580                                                          State v. S. W.

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to
exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase
or possession of firearms. The trial court entered the judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a
mental disorder and because of that disorder, is dangerous
to self and others and is not able to provide for his basic personal needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A), (B). We reverse.1
         In a single assignment of error, appellant argues
that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise appellant of the right to subpoena witnesses as required by ORS
426.100(1)(d). The state concedes the error and that reversal
is warranted. Having reviewed the record, we agree with
and accept the state’s concession. See State v. R. R. M., 

, 

 (2021) (failure to provide such
statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error).
         Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the
interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends
of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain
error. 

           Reversed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.