2017 ORS 427.275¹
Fees of persons appointed by court to perform diagnostic evaluations
  • payment by counties
  • witnesses
  • fees
  • costs

(1) Any physician, naturopathic physician or psychologist employed by the court to make a diagnostic evaluation of a person alleged to have an intellectual disability and to be in need of commitment for residential care, treatment and training, shall be allowed a fee as the court in its discretion determines reasonable for the evaluation. The costs of the evaluation shall be paid by the county of residence of the person or, if the person has no residence within the state, by the county in which the person is taken into custody. The county shall not be held responsible for the costs of prior examinations or tests reported to the court, or of diagnostic evaluations performed or arranged by the community developmental disabilities program or Department of Human Services.

(2) Witnesses subpoenaed to give testimony shall receive the same fees as are paid in criminal cases and are subject to compulsory attendance in the same manner as provided in ORS 136.567 (Issuance of subpoena for witnesses for defendant) to 136.603 (Payment of witness who is from outside state or is indigent). The attendance of out-of-state witnesses may be secured in the same manner as provided in ORS 136.623 (Definitions) to 136.637 (Short title). The party who subpoenas the witness or requests the court to subpoena the witness is responsible for payment of the cost of the subpoena and payment for the attendance of the witness at a hearing. When the witness has been subpoenaed on behalf of a person who is represented by appointed counsel, the fees and costs allowed for that witness shall be paid pursuant to ORS 135.055 (Compensation and expenses of appointed counsel). [1979 c.683 §31; 1987 c.606 §10; 2001 c.962 §72; 2009 c.595 §445; 2011 c.658 §18; 2017 c.356 §53]

Chapter 427

Notes of Decisions

Former commit­ment pro­vi­sions of this chapter were constitu­tional. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Standard of proof in former version of this chapter was proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

As commit­ment pro­ceed­ing is not crim­i­nal matter, principle of double jeopardy has no applica­tion. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Preemp­tion of the Oregon Revised Statutes by the pro­vi­sions of the Interstate Compact, (1973) Vol 36, p 297; civil commit­ment to Mental Health Division of per­son against whom crim­i­nal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 439 (1979)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 427—Persons With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilitie, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors427.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 427, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano427.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.