Court Opinion

ID: 9784931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:57:52.132754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:01.234567
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
dissenting.
The state concedes that the advice required by ORS 426.100(1)1 was not given in this case. The remaining question is whether the requirement under the statute was waived, so that the involuntary commitment order should be affirmed. A “waiver” is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right. When a right under a statute is waived, the effect is to satisfy the purpose of the statute. The purpose of ORS 426.100(1) is “to ensure that all allegedly mentally ill persons get the benefit of a full and fair hearing before that person is committed.” State v. Allison, 129 Or App 47, 50, 877 P2d 660 (1994).2
The majority holds that the legislature intended that no waiver by counsel of an alleged mentally ill person of an explanation of rights under ORS 426.100(1) even in the *318presence of the alleged mentally ill person will ever be effective in an involuntary mental commitment hearing. According to the majority, the trial court must either give the advice in the language of the statute or make an inquiry of the alleged mentally ill person to ascertain that he or she is aware of the rights under the statute and that the person gives them up voluntarily before the requirement under the statute is deemed waived.
The majority’s holding in this case and our opinion in State v. Buffum, 166 Or App 552, 999 P2d 541 (2000), reach inconsistent interpretations of ORS 426.100(1) about the role of an alleged mentally ill person’s counsel in an involuntary commitment proceeding. In Buffum, the alleged mentally ill person argued that the advice that the court gave her was insufficient to satisfy ORS 426.100(1) because it did not advise her of what the state had to prove in order to demonstrate that she was “mentally ill” for purposes of an involuntary commitment. The trial court told the alleged mentally ill person that “[i]t will be the state’s burden of showing that you are mentally ill, as that expression is defined in the statutes.” We held that advice sufficient under ORS 426.100(1) because her counsel could explain the requirements of the law to her.
“Further, ORS 426.100(1) must be viewed as part of a complex statutory scheme that serves to protect the rights of allegedly mentally ill persons and not as the sole source of protection. Most importantly, ORS 426.100(3) provides for the right to representation by and appointment of qualified counsel — a right that is virtually more difficult to waive than is the corresponding right of defendants in criminal cases. It belabors the obvious to say that an attorney who, in the words of ORS 426.100(3)(a), must possess ‘skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the allegations and the complexity of the case,’ will be fully aware of the legal and evidentiary particulars that the majority holds the court must include in its preliminary advice to the allegedly mentally ill layperson.” Buffum, 166 Or App at 556.
Our holding in Buffum necessarily implies that the advice from an alleged mentally ill person’s counsel can supplant the advice under ORS 426.100(1) when the person is *319informed of the substantive requirements for an involuntary mental commitment.3 But under the majority’s ruling, the waiver of an alleged mentally ill person as to the advice of rights required under ORS 426.100(1) spoken through the lips of counsel while in the presence of the alleged mentally ill person is without efficacy. The majority provides no rationale for its holding other than its reliance on State v. May, 131 Or App 570, 888 P2d 14 (1994), for why the legislature would have contemplated such a distinction, and I am aware of none. May is a per curiam opinion in which the state conceded that, under Allison, the trial court was required to give the advice under the statute. However, the state contended that the trial court’s failure was waived by the alleged mentally ill person’s counsel’s silence when he did not make any objection to the continuation of the proceeding. We rejected that argument, saying that the court was required either to give the advice or to conduct an examination on the record regarding any waiver. This case is quite different from May because, here, counsel made an express waiver of the requirements of the statute during the hearing and on the record. An express waiver satisfies the legislature’s goal under ORS 426.100(1) of apprising the alleged mentally ill person of what he or she must defend against. It is difficult to conceive why counsel’s waiver in this case is any less enforceable than any other waiver made by counsel on the record during trial in any other kind of case.4
The extension of the holding in May to the facts in this case is, in the language of Buffum, a holding that is *320based on the majority’s “policy considerations and postulations,”5 rather than on an expression of the intention of the legislature. The end result projects a somewhat schizophrenic view of the statutory scheme for involuntary commitments. Counsels for alleged mentally ill persons can by stipulations on behalf of, or by advice to, their clients satisfy some of the requirements of the commitment process, but not all. There is a better way to interpret ORS 426.100(1) than by piecemeal judicial fiat.
ORS 426.100(1) should be understood in accordance with its language like any other statute. To ascertain the legislature’s intent, we should interpret it as it reads and not add requirements to it or delete language from it. ORS 174.010. As with other statutes or constitutional rights, the statute should be subject to the doctrine of waiver when the requirements of waiver are met (the voluntary relinquishment of a known right). The statute requires the trial court to advise the alleged mentally ill person of why he or she is before the court, what is at stake in the proceeding, and of certain procedural rights including the right to subpoena witnesses and the right to be represented by counsel. Most importantly, there is nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the legislature requires a personal examination of the alleged mentally ill person under ORS 426.100(1) in order to accept a waiver of the mandated advice.6 Not unlike the application of statutory requirements in other kinds of cases, we should reverse the commitment order if the record on appeal does not demonstrate compliance with the statute or a voluntary and knowing waiver that ensures that the alleged mentally ill person received a full and fair hearing. See, e.g., May, 131 Or App at 571; State v. Zabransky, 166 Or App 672, 673, 998 P2d 805 (2000) (Edmonds, J., dissenting). If the record shows that the alleged mentally ill person was represented by counsel whose efforts resulted in compliance *321with the requirements of the statute, we should affirm, because the purpose of the statute has been satisfied. See, e.g., Buffum, 166 Or App at 558, (Edmonds, J., concurring). In this case, counsel told the court that his client would “waive the reading of the advice of rights, but Mr. Burge has asked me to point out to the court that he has been in custody more than five days.” There is nothing in the record to suggest that Burge’s waiver in this case, made on his behalf by his counsel, was made in other than a voluntary and knowing fashion. The language of ORS 426.100(1) does not prohibit a valid waiver made through counsel, and we should not insert such a prohibition into the statute as if we were the legislature.
I dissent.

 ORS 426.100(1) provides:
“At the time the allegedly mentally ill person is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following:
“(a) The reason for being brought before the court;
“(b) The nature of the proceedings;
“(c) The possible results of the proceedings;
“(d) The right to subpoena witnesses; and
“(e) The person’s rights regarding representation by or appointment of counsel.”

 The holding in Allison is predicated on the understanding that compliance with ORS 426.100(1) furthers due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. 129 Or App at 49. A stipulation by counsel in the presence of the alleged mentally ill person in the hearing and on the record does not impinge on due process.

 We held in State v. Waters, 165 Or App 645, 997 P2d 279 (2000), that a stipulation by the alleged mentally ill person’s counsel regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support an involuntary commitment will not permit a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal because, by the stipulation, the alleged mentally ill person invited the court to make the commitment. The import of that holding is that the liberty interests of the alleged mentally ill person are not necessarily impinged by the procedure of permitting counsel as the person’s representative to enter into the stipulation..

 According to the majority, the issue in Buffum. is “qualitatively different,” from this case, because here, unlike in Buffum, the court gave no advice of rights. 167 Or App at 316-17 n 3. That is a distinction without a substantive difference. Whether an alleged mentally ill person is informed of the legal requirement for involuntary commitment by the court, or by his or her counsel, the result is the same; the person is given information that provides the necessary knowledge to marshall a defense to the allegations.

 Buffum, 166 Or App at 557.

 When the legislature wants to require a personal examination of a party by a trial court or attach special requirements to a waiver, it knows how to enact a statute that provides that kind of requirement. See, e.g., ORS 135.360, which requires a trial court to make inquiry of a defendant in person regarding a proposed guilty or no-contest plea to a criminal charge. See also ORS 136.001(2) (requiring that the waiver of the right to be tried by a jury trial occur in writing).