136.433
Proving previous conviction; stipulation; presentation to jury. (1) Except as provided in ORS
163.111 and 813.326, if an accusatory instrument or the written notice
described in ORS 136.765 (2) alleges that the defendant has previously been
convicted of an offense, the state has the burden of proving the previous conviction
unless the defendant stipulates to that fact. The stipulation must:
(a) Be in
writing;
(b) Admit without
qualification that the defendant previously was convicted of the offense and
that the conviction is valid;
(c) Include an
express waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the fact of the
previous conviction; and
(d) Be filed with
the court and served on the district attorney.
(2) If the
defendant submits a stipulation to a previous conviction that meets the
requirements of subsection (1) of this section, the court shall accept the
stipulation. Upon acceptance:
(a) The
stipulation constitutes a judicial admission to the fact of the previous
conviction;
(b) If the
previous conviction is a material element of the offense and the jury finds the
defendant guilty upon instruction regarding the balance of the elements of the
offense, the court shall enter a judgment of guilt on the charged offense in
accordance with the stipulation;
(c) Except as
provided in subsection (3) of this section, the court may not submit the
allegation of the previous conviction to the jury; and
(d) Except as
provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, neither the court nor the
state may reveal to the jury the defendant’s previous conviction.
(3)(a) A
stipulation that is accepted by the court must be presented to the jury if:
(A) The statute
that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the
defendant previously was convicted of the offense that is the subject of the
stipulation and the charged conduct does not constitute a criminal offense
except with that element; or
(B) The previous
conviction is relevant to an enhancement fact that will be submitted to the
jury in accordance with ORS 136.765 to 136.785.
(b) Except as
provided in subsection (4) of this section, when the court presents a
stipulation to the jury under this subsection, the court may not admit any
other evidence of the previous conviction.
(4) The state may
offer, and the court may receive and submit to the jury, evidence of the
previous offense or conviction for any purpose other than establishing the fact
of the previous conviction when the evidence of the previous offense or
conviction is otherwise admissible for that purpose. When evidence of the
previous offense or conviction has been admitted by the court, the state may
comment upon, and the court may give instructions about, the evidence of the
previous offense or conviction only to the extent that the comments or
instructions relate to the purpose for which the evidence was admitted. [2009
c.180 §2]
Note: 136.433 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 136
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case:
State v. Parker, 398 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Parker, 398 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 11× “The state disagrees that this situation is controlled by Hess , noting that the trial court was not required to accept defendant’s unilateral stipulation because he did not comply with the requirements of ORS 136.433. 3 Additionally, the state disagrees with defendant’s view…”
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 39× “One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(1): 2 cases
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
State v. Parker, 398 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“The state disagrees that this situation is controlled by Hess , noting that the trial court was not required to accept defendant’s unilateral stipulation because he did not comply with the requirements of ORS 136.433. 3 Additionally, the state disagrees with defendant’s view…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(1)(a): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(1)(b): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(1)(c): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(1)(d): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(2): 2 cases
State v. Parker, 398 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“The state disagrees that this situation is controlled by Hess , noting that the trial court was not required to accept defendant’s unilateral stipulation because he did not comply with the requirements of ORS 136.433. 3 Additionally, the state disagrees with defendant’s view…”
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(3): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(3)(a): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.433(3)(a)(A): 1 case
State v. Bollet, 341 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“One of those conditions is specified in ORS 136.433 (3)(a)(A): a stipulation “must be presented to the jury” when “[t]he statute that defines the charged offense includes as a material element that the defendant previously was con- victed of the offense that is the subject of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.