Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.785

Burden of proof; effect of finding

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      136.785 Burden of proof; effect of finding. (1) When an enhancement fact is tried to a jury, any question relating to the enhancement fact shall be submitted to the jury.

      (2) The state has the burden of proving an enhancement fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

      (3) An enhancement fact that is tried to a jury is not proven unless:

      (a) The number of jurors who find that the state has met its burden of proof with regard to the enhancement fact is equal to or greater than the number of jurors that was required to find the defendant guilty of the crime; and

      (b) Of the jurors who find that the state has met its burden of proof, at least the minimum number of jurors required by this subsection to prove an enhancement fact are also jurors who found the defendant guilty of the crime or alternate jurors as provided by ORS 136.773 (5).

      (4) An enhancement fact that is tried to the court is not proven unless the court finds that the state has met its burden of proof with regard to the enhancement fact.

      (5) A finding relating to an enhancement fact made by a jury during the trial or sentencing phase of a criminal proceeding may not be reexamined by the court. Notwithstanding the findings made by a jury relating to an enhancement fact, the court is not required to impose an enhanced sentence. [2005 c.463 §7; 2007 c.16 §3]

 

      Note: See note under 136.765.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: State v. Johnson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp · cites it 3× “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
State v. Davilla (2016) orctapp “765 (notice); ORS 136.785 (burden of proof). The sentencing guidelines require the sentencing court to impose the presumptive sentence provided by the guidelines “unless the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons to impose a departure [,]” and the court makes…”
State v. Lafferty (2011) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 136.785 describes the state’s burden of proof on enhancement facts as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Villagomez (2016) orctapp “at 691; see also ORS 136.785(2); State v. Skaggs, 239 Or App 13, 15 , 244 P3d 380 (2010).”
State v. Huynh (2021) orctapp “Washington, 542 US 296, 303-04 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004) (the statutory maximum sentence for a crime for Apprendi purposes is the sentence authorized by the sen- tencing guidelines without additional factual determina- tions); see also ORS 136.785(3) (requiring an…”
State v. Hylton (2009) orctapp ““(2) ORS 136.785(3) [setting out the required relationship between the number of jurors finding the defendant guilty and the number of jurors finding enhancement facts] does not apply to a case in which the court has impaneled a new jury under this section.”
State v. Bement (2026) orctapp · cites it 2× “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
State v. Skaggs (2010) orctapp “The trial court denied the motion, and defendant appeals from the ensuing judgment imposing a departure sentence.”
Richards v. Brown (2025) orctapp “See ORS 136.785(1) (“When an enhancement fact is tried to a jury, any question relating to the enhancement fact shall be submitted to the jury.”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp · cites it 3× “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
State v. Lafferty (2011) orctapp · cites it 2× “776, which is central to the state's argument in this case, provides: "When a defendant waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt or innocence, the waiver constitutes a written waiver of the right to a jury trial on all enhancement facts whether related to the…”
Richards v. Brown (2025) orctapp “See ORS 136.785(1) (“When an enhancement fact is tried to a jury, any question relating to the enhancement fact shall be submitted to the jury.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.785(1) — 2 cases
Richards v. Brown (2025) orctapp “See ORS 136.785(1) (“When an enhancement fact is tried to a jury, any question relating to the enhancement fact shall be submitted to the jury.”
Richards v. Brown (2025) orctapp “See ORS 136.785(1) (“When an enhancement fact is tried to a jury, any question relating to the enhancement fact shall be submitted to the jury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.785(2) — 8 cases
State v. Villagomez (2016) orctapp “at 691; see also ORS 136.785(2); State v. Skaggs, 239 Or App 13, 15 , 244 P3d 380 (2010).”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
State v. Lafferty (2011) orctapp “ORS 136.785 describes the state’s burden of proof on enhancement facts as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Skaggs (2010) orctapp “The trial court denied the motion, and defendant appeals from the ensuing judgment imposing a departure sentence.”
State v. Bement (2026) orctapp “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.785(3) — 2 cases
State v. Huynh (2021) orctapp “Washington, 542 US 296, 303-04 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004) (the statutory maximum sentence for a crime for Apprendi purposes is the sentence authorized by the sen- tencing guidelines without additional factual determina- tions); see also ORS 136.785(3) (requiring an…”
State v. Hylton (2009) orctapp ““(2) ORS 136.785(3) [setting out the required relationship between the number of jurors finding the defendant guilty and the number of jurors finding enhancement facts] does not apply to a case in which the court has impaneled a new jury under this section.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.785(5) — 3 cases
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
State v. Bement (2026) orctapp “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp “If the jury finds enhancement facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 136.785(2), the court may then, under ORS 163.”
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.