State v. Scharf
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, P. J.
Appellant seeks reversal of his civil commitment, raising two assignments of error. Because our disposition of the first assignment is dispositive, we do not consider the second assignment of error. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not advising him of his rights under ORS 426.100(1). The state concedes that the trial court erred, and we agree with that concession. The state, however, argues that we should affirm the trial court’s judgment because the error was harmless. We disagree and reverse.
In this case, the trial court excused appellant from the hearing. After that,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. RitzmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- State v. BurgeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- State v. Bartel-DawsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. M. L. R.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- State v. S. J. F.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- State v. M. T.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- State v. MTCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- State v. C. E. W.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2026
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.