OREGON
SEXUAL OFFENSES:
DEFINITIONS, DEFENSES, AND CONSENT LAWS
ORS 163.305
Definitions.
As used in chapter 743,
Oregon Laws 1971, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Forcible compulsion” means to compel by:
(a) Physical force; or
(b) A threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of
immediate or future death or physical injury to self or another person,
or in fear that the person or another person will immediately or in the
future be kidnapped.
(2) “Mentally incapacitated” means that a person is rendered incapable
of appraising or controlling the conduct of the person at the time of
the alleged offense.
(3) “Oral or anal sexual intercourse” means sexual conduct between
persons consisting of contact between the sex organs or anus of one
person and the mouth or anus of another.
(4) “Physically helpless” means that a person is unconscious or for any
other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an
act.
(5) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual or other intimate
parts of a person or causing such person to touch the sexual or other
intimate parts of the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying
the sexual desire of either party.
(6) “Sexual intercourse” has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any
penetration, however slight; emission is not required. [1971 c.743 §104;
1975 c.461 §1; 1977 c.844 §1; 1979 c.744 §7; 1983 c.500 §1; 1999 c.949
§1; 2009 c.770 §1; 2017 c.318 §2; 2017 c.634 §17; 2021 c.82 §1; 2023
c.407 §1]
*****
ORS 163.315
Incapacity to consent; effect of lack of resistance.
(1) A person is considered incapable of
consenting to a sexual act if the person is:
(a) Under 18 years of age;
(b) Incapable of appraising the nature of the person’s conduct;
(c) Mentally incapacitated; or
(d) Physically helpless.
(2) A lack of verbal or physical resistance does not, by itself,
constitute consent but may be considered by the trier of fact along with
all other relevant evidence.
(3) A person is incapable of appraising the nature of the person’s
conduct if:
(a) The person is unable to understand the nature of the conduct;
(b) The person is unable to understand the right to choose whether and
how to engage in conduct, including the right to revoke a prior decision
to engage in conduct; or
(c) The person is unable to communicate a decision to engage in conduct.
[1971 c.743 §105; 1999 c.949 §2; 2001 c.104 §52; 2021 c.82 §2]
******
ORS 163.325 Ignorance or mistake as a
defense.
(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to
163.445 in which the criminality of conduct depends on a child’s being
under the age of 16, it is no defense that the defendant did not know
the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to
be older than the age of 16.
(2) When criminality depends on the child’s being under a specified age
other than 16, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove
that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be above the
specified age at the time of the alleged offense.
(3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the
victim’s lack of consent is based solely upon the incapacity of the
victim to consent because the victim is mentally incapacitated,
physically helpless or incapable of appraising the nature of the
victim’s conduct, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to
prove that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant did not know
of the facts or conditions responsible for the victim’s incapacity to
consent.
(4) In any prosecution under ORS 163.415 or 163.425 in which the
victim’s lack of consent is not based on the incapacity of the victim to
consent because of the victim’s age, it is an affirmative defense for
the defendant to prove that, at the time of the alleged offense, the
defendant reasonably believed that the victim consented to the sexual
contact, sexual intercourse or oral or anal intercourse. [1971 c.743
§106; 2021 c.82 §3; 2021 c.410 §1]
OREGON ROMEO AND JULIET LAW:
ORS 163.345 Age as a defense in certain cases.
(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355, 163.365, 163.385, 163.395,
163.415, 163.425, 163.427 or 163.435 in which the victim’s lack of
consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less
than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three
years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense.
(2) In any prosecution under ORS 163.408, when the object used to commit
the unlawful sexual penetration was the hand or any part thereof of the
actor and in which the victim’s lack of consent was due solely to
incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, it
is a defense that the actor was less than three years older than the
victim at the time of the alleged offense.
(3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.445 in which the victim’s lack of
consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less
than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three
years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense if the
victim was at least 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offense.
[1971 c.743 §108; 1991 c.386 §3; 1991 c.830 §4; 1999 c.626 §24;
amendments by 1999 c.626 §45 repealed by 2001 c.884 §1]
|
