Court Opinion

ID: 9549131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:13:47.755527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:53.235014
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but disassociate myself from this statement, which appears at page 645 of the opinion:
“* * * If counsel is not present at the examination, however, the defendant should be asked by the examiner whether he understands that counsel is entitled to be present and has consented to be examined in the absence of counsel. * * *”
This court never has held that a defendant is entitled to the presence of counsel at such an examination. The issue is not directly presented in this case, and I would not decide it. Compare State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 333, 647 P2d 904 (1982) (dissenting opinion).