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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.290 (2026)

Incapacity due to immaturity

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

      161.290 Incapacity due to immaturity. (1) A person who is tried as an adult in a court of criminal jurisdiction is not criminally responsible for any conduct which occurred when the person was under 12 years of age.

      (2) Incapacity due to immaturity, as defined in subsection (1) of this section, is a defense. [Formerly 161.380; 1995 c.422 §58]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Ryan, 396 P.3d 867 (Or. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ryan, 396 P.3d 867 (Or. 2017). · cites it 13× “And if a person, as a result of a mental disease or defect, commits a criminal act but, at the time, “lacks sub- stantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law,” that person will be found “guilty except…”
State v. Godines, 236 P.3d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “” 16 See ORS 161.290 (1993). 17 It was in the context of that jurisdictional and sentencing scheme that the voters adopted Measure 11 in 1994.”
State v. Gensler, 337 P.3d 890 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “According to defendant, that was so because, once he testified in the case pertaining to J that he had not committed the alleged conduct, he would be subject to cross-examination about the case pertaining to C — in which his defense was incapacity due to immaturity under ORS…”
State v. Gonzalez, 373 Or. 248 (Or. 2025). · cites it 4× “In a concurring opinion, Justice Balmer empha- sized his understanding that the majority’s holding was 5 ORS 161.290 provides: “(1) A person who is tried as an adult in a court of criminal jurisdiction is not criminally responsible for any conduct which occurred when the person…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Fitch, 84 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “435 (contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor is committed by a person 18 years or older); ORS 161.290 (no criminal liability for offender who was under 12 at the time of the offense).”
State v. Ryan, 473 P.3d 90 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “In so saying, the court relied on defense counsel’s argument that defendant functioned as a 10-year old and referred to ORS 161.290(1), which makes age 12 the threshold for crimi- nal liability of a minor.”
State v. Carey-Martin, 430 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “The court used ORS 161.290(1), which provides that a person tried as an adult is not criminally responsible for conduct occurring when the person was under 12 years of age, as "objective evidence of a societal standard that eschews treating persons with the attributes of a…”
State v. Person, 853 P.2d 813 (Or. 1993). · cites it 2× “A defense of incapacity due to immaturity, ORS 161.290, is tendered by defendant. On the morning of trial, defendant does not consent to a continuance, and the district attorney does not request one.”
State v. Counts, 816 P.2d 1157 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “[10] Because the second element does not present an issue in this case, it is not discussed further [11] The responsibility article of the proposed law became ORS 161.290 et seq. [12] In State v. Ott, 297 Or.”
State v. McCullough, 220 P.3d 1182 (Or. 2009). “345 (age as a defense to certain crimes); ORS 161.290 (defense of lack of criminal responsibility for crimes committed when an individual is under 12 years of age).”
State v. H. K. D. S. (A163158), 469 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “In Oregon, children age 12 through 17 can potentially be held criminally responsible for their conduct, ORS 161.290, in just the same way that adults age 18 and above can.”
State v. Fudge, 443 P.3d 1176 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Because ORS 161.290 sets the minimum age for criminal liability at 12 years old, defendant argues, the 300-month minimum sentence, which may be constitutional as applied to an ordinary adult, is constitutionally disproportionate when applied to defendant because of his limited…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.290(1) — 9 cases
State v. Ryan, 396 P.3d 867 (Or. 2017). “And if a person, as a result of a mental disease or defect, commits a criminal act but, at the time, “lacks sub- stantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law,” that person will be found “guilty except…”
State v. Ryan, 473 P.3d 90 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “In so saying, the court relied on defense counsel’s argument that defendant functioned as a 10-year old and referred to ORS 161.290(1), which makes age 12 the threshold for crimi- nal liability of a minor.”
State v. Carey-Martin, 430 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “The court used ORS 161.290(1), which provides that a person tried as an adult is not criminally responsible for conduct occurring when the person was under 12 years of age, as "objective evidence of a societal standard that eschews treating persons with the attributes of a…”
State v. Gensler, 337 P.3d 890 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “According to defendant, that was so because, once he testified in the case pertaining to J that he had not committed the alleged conduct, he would be subject to cross-examination about the case pertaining to C — in which his defense was incapacity due to immaturity under ORS…”
State v. Godines, 236 P.3d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” 16 See ORS 161.290 (1993). 17 It was in the context of that jurisdictional and sentencing scheme that the voters adopted Measure 11 in 1994.”
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.