Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.767 (2026)

Presentence investigation and examination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      137.767 Presentence investigation and examination. (1)(a) A court shall order a presentence investigation and an examination of the defendant by a psychiatrist or psychologist upon motion of the district attorney if:

      (A) The defendant is convicted of a crime listed in ORS 137.765 (3); and

      (B) In the opinion of the court, there is reason to believe that the defendant is a sexually violent dangerous offender as defined in ORS 137.765.

      (b) The court may appoint one or more qualified psychiatrists or psychologists to examine the defendant in the local correctional facility.

      (2) The state shall pay all costs connected with an examination under this section.

      (3) The examination performed pursuant to this section must be completed within 30 days if the defendant is in custody or within 60 days if the defendant is not in custody. The court may order extensions not exceeding 30 days. Each psychiatrist or psychologist appointed to examine a defendant under this section shall file with the court a written report of findings and conclusions, including an evaluation of whether the defendant is predisposed to commit a crime listed in ORS 137.765 (3) because the defendant has:

      (a) Psychopathic personality features; and

      (b) Sexually deviant arousal patterns or interests.

      (4) No statement made by a defendant under this section may be used against the defendant in any civil proceeding or in any other criminal proceeding.

      (5) Upon receipt of the examination and presentence reports the court shall set a time for a sentence hearing. At the sentence hearing the district attorney and the defendant may question any psychiatrist or psychologist who examined the defendant pursuant to this section.

      (6) If, after considering the evidence in the case or in the sentence hearing, the jury or, if the defendant waives the right to a jury trial, the court finds that the defendant is a sexually violent dangerous offender, the court shall sentence the defendant as provided in ORS 137.765.

      (7) The fact that a person is a sexually violent dangerous offender is an enhancement fact, as defined in ORS 136.760, and ORS 136.765 to 136.785 apply to making a determination of the fact. [1999 c.163 §3; 2005 c.463 §§12,17; 2007 c.16 §7]

 

      Note: See note under 137.765.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2008–2020 · leading case: State v. Hopson, 186 P.3d 317 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hopson, 186 P.3d 317 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “123, but that it could make factual findings in support of a sexually violent dangerous offender sentence, under ORS 137.767, on the sodomy conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in imposing a sexually violent dangerous offender sentence because Blakely and…”
State v. Myers, 711 S.E.2d 275 (W. Va. 2011). “§ 11-703 (2010); Or.Rev. Stat. § 137.767 (2009); 42 Pa. Consol.”
Petterson v. Wilson (D. Or. 2020). “Analysis In his remaining claims, Petitioner alleges that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to: (1) demand that the trial court require Petitioner to submit to a psychosexual evaluation within 30 days of his indictment as required by ORS 137.767;…”
State v. Hopson, 206 P.3d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “123, but that it could impose a sexually violent dangerous offender sentence, under ORS 137.767, on the sodomy conviction based on those findings.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.767(6): 1 case
State v. Hopson, 186 P.3d 317 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “123, but that it could make factual findings in support of a sexually violent dangerous offender sentence, under ORS 137.767, on the sodomy conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in imposing a sexually violent dangerous offender sentence because Blakely and…”
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.