State v. Zabransky

Citation998 P.2d 805,166 Or. App. 672
PartiesIn the Matter of Scott Jon Zabransky, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Scott Jon ZABRANSKY, Appellant.
Decision Date19 April 2000
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

Hilary E. Berkman, Corvallis, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Richard D. Wasserman, 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 DEITS, Chief Judge, and EDMONDS, De MUNIZ, LANDAU, HASELTON, ARMSTRONG, WOLLHEIM, and BREWER, Judges.

Resubmitted En Banc February 16, 2000.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court's order finding him to be mentally ill and committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period of 180 days. Appellant's only argument that warrants discussion is that the trial court's advice under ORS 426.100(1) was inadequate. That argument is identical in substance to the one that we considered and rejected in State v. Buffum, 166 Or.App. 552, 999 P.2d 541 (2000).

Affirmed.

EDMONDS, J., dissenting.

The record in this involuntary mental commitment case does not show what opportunity if any, Zabransky had to confer with his appointed counsel before the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court told Zabransky, in relevant part:

"I need to advise you of your rights with regard to where we are at today and what we're doing and where we're going. The reason that you were brought to court today is because a petition has been filed alleging that you are mentally ill and in need of treatment. These proceedings are to make a determination with regards to that."

Then, the court told him that a member of the public defender's office "will be representing your interests in today's hearing" and that she was sitting with him at counsel table. The public defender next informed the trial court that she had not had an opportunity to review Zabransky's medical records before the hearing and that she had seen only the report of the mental health investigator. The trial court permitted her to open the sealed medical records and make notes. After that, counsel indicated that she had no objection to the admission into evidence of the medical records, and the hearing proceeded with the state calling witnesses. Zabransky never testified, and no witnesses were called to testify on his behalf. The court ruled without hearing closing arguments by counsel or inquiring of Zabransky if he had anything to say.1

The record in this case demonstrates why the majority is wrong when it holds that the trial court need only to tell an alleged mentally ill person that "a petition has been filed alleging that you are mentally ill and in need of treatment," and that "these proceedings are to make a determination with regards to that" to comply with the legislature's statutory goal. The trial court gave Zabransky no other advice about the statutory standard for involuntary commitment and about what the state had to prove. Unbeknownst to Zabransky (unless his counsel told him and there is no record of that fact), the issue at the hearing was whether the state could show by clear and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Burge
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 17 d3 Maio d3 2000
    ...ill person received a full and fair hearing. See, e.g., May, 131 Or.App. at 571, 888 P.2d 14; State v. Zabransky, 166 Or.App. 672, 673, 998 P.2d 805 (2000) (Edmonds, J., dissenting). If the record shows that the alleged mentally ill person was represented by counsel whose efforts resulted i......
  • State v. Cach
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 28 d3 Fevereiro d3 2001
    ...represent himself was harmless error. See also Buffum, 166 Or. App. at 558-63, 999 P.2d 541; State v. Zabransky, 166 Or.App. 672, 673, 674, 998 P.2d 805 (Edmonds and Armstrong, JJ., dissenting), rev. held in abeyance pending decision in State v. Buffum ...
  • State v. Buffum
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 19 d3 Abril d3 2000
    ...apparently considers to be a meaningless exercise. Judge Edmonds agrees that the trial court erred. See State v. Zabransky, 166 Or.App. 672, 998 P.2d 805 (2000) (Edmonds, J., dissenting). However, in his concurrence in this case he argues that its error was harmless because appellant actual......
  • State v. Zabransky, S47653.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 25 d2 Março d2 2003
    ...P.3d 1027 335 Or. 267 State v. Zabransky. No. S47653. Supreme Court of Oregon. March 25, 2003. Appeal from No. A99281, 166 Or.App. 672, 998 P.2d 805. Petition for review is ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT