Court Opinion

ID: 9537416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:17:57.653918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:39.467225
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring.
I agree with what the majority has to say about the effect of both Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 419.498(1). I understand the desire to reach and decide those issues. I do not agree, however, that it was necessary to do so in the case at bar.
ORS 419.498(1), in pertinent part, provides:
"* * * Unless the child or his parents otherwise request, the general public shall be excluded and only such persons admitted as the judge finds have a proper interest in the case or the work of the court. The judge may exclude the public during any portion of the hearing in which it appears that the presence of the public may embarrass a witness or party or otherwise prejudice the reception of trustworthy evidence. * * * ” (Empahsis added.)
It appears to me that the statute requires that if the judge finds that a person has a "proper interest” in the case or the work of the court, that person must be admitted, subject to the possible exception that such person may yet be excluded if that person’s presence might embarrass a witness or party or otherwise prejudice the reception of trustworthy evidence.
In this case, the writ alleges that plaintiffsrelators have a proper interest in the underlying case and in the work of the court with respect thereto. *286The demurrer by the defendant admits that allegation. True, there is no allegation that "the judge” has found such a "proper interest,” but the demurrer by the defendant judge admits the allegation that relators have such an interest and, in my opinion, is equivalent to the necessary finding.
I concur that a peremptory writ must issue.