# State v. Buffum

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · April 19, 2000 · 166 Or. App. 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541613

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Andrea Lucy Buffum, Alleged to Be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ANDREA LUCY BUFFUM, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** April 19, 2000
- **Citations:** 166 Or. App. 552; 999 P.2d 541; 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 634
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmonds
- **Judges:** Deits, Edmonds, De Muniz, Landau, Haselton, Armstrong, Linder, Wollheim, Brewer
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541613

## Opinion text

EDMONDS, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s result only because the alleged mentally ill person (Buffum) with the assistance of counsel actually litigated the issue of whether the state had proven that she was “mentally ill.” In my view, due process is not complied with unless the person subject to involuntary commitment is apprised of the statutory criteria which will be applied in the hearing to determine if the person is mentally ill within the meaning of the statute. Otherwise, the person is unaware of what he or she must defend against. Merely telling the person that “this is a hearing to determine whether you are mentally ill” does not comport with due process because it does not inform the person that more than a mental illness must be demonstrated to satisfy the requirements for a commitment. That is why the reading of ORS 426.100 to the person by itself does not satisfy due process. However, the hearing in this case took place after Buffum and her counsel had a week to prepare. During the hearing, Buffum called witnesses on her behalf and cross-examined the state’s witnesses on whether she was able to provide for her basic needs. Under those circumstances, it is apparent that she was not denied due process because of the failure of the court to explain the statutory criteria that is part of “the nature of the proceeding” under ORS 426.100 and to define for Buffum at the outset of the hearing what “mentally ill” means for purposes of involuntary commitments.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541613. Public record. Not legal advice.