Background
The Linn County Circuit Court entered a judgment committing S. N. C. to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days. It also entered an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and directing the sheriff to seize and dispose of any firearms that she owned or possessed.
On appeal, S. N. C. argued that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her that a firearm prohibition was at issue in the commitment proceeding. She also contended that the court lacked authority to prohibit possession or purchase of ammunition and to direct the sheriff to seize and dispose of firearms. The state disputed the plain-error argument but conceded that the challenged ammunition and seizure-and-disposal provisions were unauthorized and that preservation was excused because those provisions first appeared in the post-hearing order.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not plainly err by failing to advise S. N. C. of the potential firearm prohibition. Relying on State v. J. R. S., the court rejected that basis for reversal.
The court accepted the state’s concession that the trial court lacked authority to prohibit ammunition purchases or possession and to order the sheriff to seize and dispose of firearms. It struck those portions of the order, remanded for entry of a modified order and delivery of that order to the sheriff, and otherwise affirmed, leaving the civil commitment and firearm prohibition intact.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court does not plainly err by failing to advise a person in a civil commitment proceeding that a firearm prohibition may be imposed.
- The commitment court lacked authority to extend the prohibition to ammunition or to direct the sheriff to seize and dispose of firearms.
- Because the unauthorized provisions first appeared in the post-hearing order, the appellant’s failure to preserve the challenge did not bar appellate review.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a permissible firearm prohibition associated with a civil commitment from additional restrictions and enforcement measures that exceed the trial court’s statutory authority. It also confirms that an appellate court may address unauthorized terms first introduced in a written order after the hearing.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.