State v. Waters

• Decision Date: 01 March 2000
• Citation: 997 P.2d 279,165 Or. App. 645
• Parties: In the matter of Tyrone Waters, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Tyrone WATERS, Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

997 P.2d 279

165 Or. App. 645

In the matter of Tyrone Waters, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person.

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Tyrone WATERS, Appellant.

(9805-64628; CA A102453)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted November 10, 1999.

Decided March 1, 2000.

Harrison Latto argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Jas. Jeffrey Adams, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before De MUNIZ, Presiding Judge, and HASELTON and WOLLHEIM, Judges.

De MUNIZ, P.J.

Appellant seeks review of an order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division for a period of 180 days. He contends that the trial court erred in basing its order primarily on appellant's stipulation to the commitment on the ground that he was unable to meet his basic needs. For the following reasons, we affirm.

In May 1998, appellant was detained on an emergency psychiatric hold pursuant to ORS 426.232 at Providence Hospital. A physician filed a notification of mental illness with the Multnomah County Circuit Court indicating a belief that appellant had a mental disorder and was in need of emergency treatment. The notification indicated that appellant was acting on delusions, had been off his medications for six months, and was refusing medications. Shortly thereafter, appellant was transferred to Emanuel Hospital, where he continued to refuse medications and began a hunger strike. Several days later, a hearing was held on the question of whether appellant should be committed involuntarily. The court received into evidence the nonhearsay portions of an investigative report prepared pursuant to ORS 426.070. The report indicates that appellant indicated to the investigator that he would not take medications because he disagreed with his doctors, and he would not eat because he was protesting against Emanuel Hospital. The investigator indicated that appellant had been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and also with a delusional disorder, that appellant did not believe he was mentally ill, and that he would not take medications for that reason. The investigator observed that appellant was well-spoken, with good grooming and hygiene, but that his thinking showed signs of disorganization, paranoia and delusions.

Before the hearing, appellant, his attorney, the district attorney, and the investigator who had prepared the report discussed the possibility of appellant stipulating to his commitment and the investigator arranging to transfer appellant from Emanuel to a different hospital. Appellant's counsel explained to the court that his client had chosen to remain in treatment and that he would stipulate to the commitment based on an inability to meet his basic needs. He further stated that his client would like to be treated at a different hospital but that that might not happen immediately. The court asked appellant if he agreed with his attorney's statements, and appellant indicated that he did. The court then asked appellant about his medications, and appellant indicated that he was taking none. The court asked if he agreed that he had emotional problems that were keeping him in the hospital, and appellant stated that he did. When asked about his mental health problems, appellant explained to the court that there were "disruptive elements going on" in his life and that they had been "having an effect or an impact." When asked if it was affecting his ability to function and deal with day to day activities, appellant responded: "It's causing a great deal of stress."

The court then found that appellant suffered from a mental disorder and required commitment based on his inability to care for his basic needs. The court then asked the investigator about appellant's transfer to a different hospital, and appellant reminded the court that he was on a hunger strike because he did not wish to be kept at Emanuel Hospital.

Also present at the hearing were two mental health examiners. Neither participated verbally during the hearing. One submitted a report to the court that indicated, by checked boxes, that the examiner believed that appellant suffered from a mental disorder, was unable to meet his basic needs, and would not cooperate and benefit from voluntary treatment. The other submitted a report to the court that contained no check marks in boxes but indicated a provisional diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. That report also noted that appellant was not taking his medications and that he stipulated to his inability to provide for his basic needs. Both examiners' reports were signed, but neither was sworn.

On appeal, appellant makes four assignments of error, none of which was preserved in the court below. In one assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in accepting the reports of the two mental health examiners because the reports were unsworn. The other assignments of error relate to appellant's stipulation. He argues first that, due to the nature of a mental commitment proceeding, a court may never accept a factual stipulation but is required to take evidence. He argues next that, in any event, the court erred in accepting his stipulation without first establishing, with the help of mental health professionals, that appellant was competent to enter into the stipulation. Finally, appellant argues that the record, in the absence of the stipulation, fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to provide for his basic needs. Appellant further contends that, due to the nature of his claims, "they cannot have been preserved."

Appellant relies on State v. Allison, 129 Or.App. 47, 877 P.2d 660 (1994), for the broad proposition that errors in mental commitment proceedings need not be preserved in the trial court for the issues to be considered on appeal. We disagree that Allison stands for so broad a proposition. In Allison, as in the present case, the appellant stipulated in the trial court that he met the statutory criteria for commitment. The trial court accepted the stipulation but failed to provide the appellant with the mandatory advice of rights required by ORS 426.100(1). Id. at 49, 877 P.2d 660. We held that the advice of rights was an "integral part of the procedure," but went on to state:

"In this case, the court held an extremely brief hearing and, although the court accepted appellant's counsel's offer of stipulation to the essential facts, there was almost no communication between the court and appellant. The closest the court came to fulfilling the requirements of ORS 426.100(1) was when it told appellant that the hearing was being held to determine what was going to happen `over the next several days.' That is insufficient to fulfill the statutory command. Whether or not appellant is represented by counsel, the court must inform appellant of the nature and possible outcome of the proceedings. The fact that appellant stipulated to the facts and to his commitment may allow the court to expedite some aspects of the hearing procedure, but it does not relieve the court of its duty to advise appellant of the nature and possible outcome of the proceedings, as well as his or her rights at the hearing." Id. at 50, 877 P.2d 660 (citation omitted).

As to appellant's contention that the court's acceptance of the mental examiners' signed but unsworn reports was reversible error, we disagree that it was an error relating to an "integral part of the procedure" that need not be preserved in the trial court. ORS 426.120 requires that the examiners make their "reports in writing, under oath, to the court[.]" Neither of the reports submitted pursuant to this section was submitted under oath in the present case. We agree that this is error, and even that...