No. 46 November 14, 2025 433
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff - Adverse Party,
v.
Joshua Adam HEMION,
aka Josh Adam Hemion,
Defendant,
and
METROPOLITAN PUBLIC DEFENDER, INC.,
Relator.
(CC 24CR34660) (SC S072015)
Original proceeding in mandamus.*
Argued and submitted November 4, 2025.
Carl Macpherson, Metropolitan Public Defender, Inc.,
Portland, argued the cause for relator. Laura Graser filed
the brief. Also on the brief was Carl Macpherson.
Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause and filed the brief for adverse party. Also
on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and
Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General.
Daniel C. Silberman, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers
Association, Salem, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Also on the brief
was Nora Coon.
Before Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog, Bushong, and Masih,
Justices, and Powers and Pagán, Justices pro tempore.…
PER CURIAM
A peremptory writ of mandamus shall issue.
______________
* On petition for peremptory writ of mandamus from an order of the
Washington County Circuit Court, Rebecca D. Guptill, Judge.
… Flynn, C.J., and James, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
434 State v. Hemion
Cite as 374 Or 433 (2025) 435
PER CURIAM
Relator, Metropolitan Public Defender, Inc. (MPD),
has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus ordering
the Washington County Circuit Court to vacate an order
entered on April 23, 2025, requiring MPD to disclose records
regarding cases that its attorneys are handling for its indigent clients. The trial court issued the order in response to
a motion filed by the Washington County District Attorney’s
Office. This court previously issued an alternative writ of
mandamus; the trial court took no action in response to that
writ, and the case was argued and submitted on the merits.
Among other things, MPD argues that the trial
court’s legal bases for the order—specifically, Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution and the Public Records
Law, ORS chapter 192—do not support the order. Adverse
party, the State of Oregon, agrees with that argument. So
do we.
The trial court relied on the “open courts” provision of Article I, section 10. That provision states that “[n]
o court shall be secret” and requires justice to be administered “openly.” It “protects both a litigant’s access to court
to obtain legal redress and the right of members of the
public to scrutinize the court’s administration of justice by
seeing and hearing the courts in operation.” Doe v. Corp.
of Presiding Bishop, 352 Or 77, 93,
280 P3d 377 (2012). For
the purposes of the provision, “the term ‘court’ … refers
to a legally established institution designed and authorized
to administer justice.”
Id. at 89. Although the provision “is
written in broad terms, it does not apply to all aspects of
court proceedings” and “generally prohibits a judicial proceeding from being ‘secret’ (closed to the public), if, in that
judicial proceeding, ‘justice’ is ‘administered.’ ” State v.
MacBale,
353 Or 789, 806,
305 P3d 107 (2013). “Justice is
administered when a court determines legal rights based on
the presentation of evidence and argument. Put differently,
the focus of the open courts provision is on ‘adjudications.’ ”
Id. (citing Oregon Publishing Co. v. O’Leary,
303 Or 297, 303,
736 P2d 173 (1987)). “To the extent that adjudications are
not involved, the administration of justice is not governed by
it.” O’Leary,
303 Or at 303. In sum, the openness required by
436 State v. Hemion
Article I, section 10, is the openness of “courts” conducting
“adjudications.” Article I, section 10, does not provide a basis
for the trial court’s order requiring MPD to open its records.
The order does not relate to the manner in which a “court”
is conducting an “adjudication.” Therefore, as the parties
agree, the trial court erred in relying on Article I, section
10.
In addition, to the extent that the trial court relied
on the Public Records Law, that was also error. As the parties both note, the Washington County District Attorney’s
Office never sent a public records request to MPD. See ORS
192.324(1) (right to inspect records of “public body” is initiated by request in writing). Because the trial court’s
order was not based on a public records request, the Public
Records Law cannot serve as a basis for its order. Further,
because no public records request was sent, we need not,
and do not, determine whether MPD—a nonprofit organization that contracts with the state to provide public defense
services—could be subject to such a request.
Because of the potential harms resulting from the
trial court’s erroneous order, we shall issue a peremptory
writ directing the trial court to vacate that order.
A peremptory writ of mandamus shall issue.
