State v. Bartel-Dawson
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Per curiam
In this appeal of appellant’s commitment to the custody of the Oregon Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division, the only issue is whether the trial court’s failure to advise appellant at the hearing of her right to subpoena witnesses requires reversal. The state concedes that ORS 426.100(l)(d) requires such advice to be given at the hearing, a concession we accept. The state argues, however, that the error is harmless, relying on State v. Cach, 172 Or App 745, 750 n 4, 19 P3d 992, rev den 332 Or 316 (2001) (Kistler, J., majority) and 172 Or App at 754 (Edmonds, P. J.,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. CachCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. RitzmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- State v. LindeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- State v. ScharfCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- State v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- State v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004