Background
R. V. H. appealed a Klamath County Circuit Court judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days. He also challenged an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms.
In his first assignment of error, R. V. H. argued that the trial court plainly erred by proceeding with the commitment case after he had been held beyond the five-judicial-day limit for emergency holds under ORS 426.232(2). The state conceded the error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and reversed. The court explained that it has consistently reversed civil-commitment orders when a person was held longer than five judicial days in violation of ORS 426.232(2) and no statutory exception applied.
The court exercised its discretion to correct the unpreserved error because of the nature of civil-commitment proceedings, the parties’ interests, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice. Because that ruling resolved the appeal, the court did not address R. V. H.’s other assignments of error.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court commits plain error by proceeding with a civil-commitment case after an emergency hold exceeds the five-judicial-day statutory limit without an applicable exception.
- The Court of Appeals may exercise its discretion to correct that error given the liberty interests and consequences involved in civil commitment.
- The court reversed the judgment without reaching the appellant’s remaining challenges, including issues associated with the firearm-prohibition order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Oregon’s statutory deadline for emergency mental-health holds is a meaningful procedural safeguard. A violation may require reversal even when the affected person did not preserve the objection in the trial court.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.