From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Cook

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 13, 2003
190 Or. App. 568 (Or. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

concluding that the court had abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance under analogous circumstances

Summary of this case from State v. W. A. B. (In re W. A. B.)

Opinion

02-03-63124; A117801.

Submitted on record and briefs October 3, 2003.

Filed: November 13, 2003.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Lewis B. Lawrence, Judge.

Susan D. Isaacs filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and LINDER and ORTEGA, Judges.


PER CURIAM.

Reversed.


Appellant appeals from a judgment that civilly committed her on the basis that she was dangerous to others. ORS 426.130. On appeal, she asserts that the trial court erred in denying her attorney's motion for a set-over, erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that she was a danger to others, and erred in finding that she was unwilling, unable, or unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with treatment. The state concedes error on all issues. As explained below, we accept those concessions and reverse.

ORS 426.095(2)(c) provides that a hearing may be postponed for good cause if requested by counsel. Counsel here told the court that he had been appointed to represent appellant the day before the hearing and had not yet had an opportunity to contact witnesses. A decision on whether to postpone a hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Under these circumstances, an abuse of discretion is shown; appellant's attorney offered a valid reason for a postponement, the state did not oppose it, and the court denied it for no apparent reason.

The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that appellant is dangerous to others, is dangerous to herself or unable to meet her basic needs, or is unwilling, unable, or unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with treatment.

Reversed.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Cook

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 13, 2003
190 Or. App. 568 (Or. Ct. App. 2003)

concluding that the court had abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance under analogous circumstances

Summary of this case from State v. W. A. B. (In re W. A. B.)
Case details for

In the Matter of Cook

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Colleen Cook, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 13, 2003

Citations

190 Or. App. 568 (Or. Ct. App. 2003)
79 P.3d 373

Citing Cases

State v. G. B. (In re G. B.)

A decision on whether to grant a postponement is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. C. C, 190 …

State v. W. A. B. (In re W. A. B.)

The state concedes that, because the motion for a continuance was unopposed and appellant’s counsel had not…