539 P.3d 341
Or. Ct. App.2023Background
- Appellant was involuntarily committed to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days and subject to an order prohibiting purchase or possession of firearms.
- At the initial civil-commitment hearing, the trial court did not advise appellant that a firearm-prohibition order was a possible result.
- Appellant challenged that omission on appeal, but the claim was unpreserved; the Court of Appeals reviewed under ORAP 5.45(1)’s plain-error standard.
- ORS 426.100(1)(c) requires that a person alleged to have a mental illness be advised of the “possible results” of the proceeding; in State v. J. R. B. the court had listed five such direct results.
- The Court of Appeals concluded a firearm prohibition is a collateral (indirect) consequence of commitment, not one of the five direct “possible results,” so it was not an obvious error subject to plain-error review and the commitment and firearm prohibition were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to advise appellant at the outset that a firearm-prohibition order was a possible result under ORS 426.100(1)(c) (reviewed for plain error under ORAP 5.45(1)) | The court must advise of all "possible results," and a firearm prohibition is one such result; omission is egregious and warrants plain-error relief. | A firearm prohibition is a collateral consequence of commitment, not one of the direct "possible results" the statute requires advising; whether advisory duty extends to collateral consequences is reasonably in dispute, so omission is not plain error. | The omission was not an obvious legal error and was reasonably in dispute; therefore it was not plain error. Judgment and firearm-prohibition order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858 (Or Ct App 2018) (identified five direct "possible results" of a civil-commitment hearing that a court must advise a person about)
- State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566 (Or Ct App 2013) (failure to provide all information required by ORS 426.100(1) can be an egregious error justifying plain-error review)
- State v. King, 361 Or 646 (Or 2017) (describes inability to own or possess firearms as a collateral consequence)
- State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516 (Or Ct App 2012) (articulates the ORAP 5.45(1) plain-error review elements)