Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.300 (2026)
Evidence of qualifying mental disorder admissible as to intent
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
161.300 Evidence of qualifying mental disorder admissible as to intent. Evidence that the actor suffered from a qualifying mental disorder is admissible whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether the actor did or did not have the intent which is an element of the crime. [1971 c.743 §37; 2017 c.634 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990). “" ORS 161.300 provides: "Evidence that the actor suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether the actor did or did not have the intent which is an element of the crime.”
State v. Booth, 567 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “However, contrary to defendant’s request, the court did not instruct the jury on the partial responsibility doctrine, ORS 161.300. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on partial responsibility.”
State v. Smith, 960 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “1 He asserts that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of “partial responsibility” under ORS 161.300 on the ground that defendant was charged with “knowingly” escaping.”
State v. Francis, 588 P.2d 611 (Or. 1978). “295, and a partial responsibility defense, ORS 161.300 2 . The trial court granted the state’s *624 pretrial motion to exclude any evidence of partial responsibility.”
State v. Bales, 504 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant’s argument was premised on ORS 161.300 (2015), which provided that “[e]vidence that the actor suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether the actor did or did not have the intent which is an element of the…”
State v. Booth, 588 P.2d 614 (Or. 1978). “295 and partial responsibility under ORS 161.300. 2 The trial court instructed on the insanity defense contained in ORS 161.”
State v. Francis, 567 P.2d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 161.300 provides: "Evidence that the actor suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether he did or did not have the intent which is an element of the crime.”
State v. Gonzalez, 534 P.3d 289 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Defendant raised the defense of partial responsibility under ORS 161.300. She urged the court to acquit her on the first-degree arson counts and Cite as 326 Or App 587 (2023) 595 instead find her guilty of the lesser-included offense of reck- less burning, ORS 164.”
State v. Mains, 669 P.2d 1112 (Or. 1983). “' The real issues for the jury were the defenses of extreme emotional disturbance (Former ORS 163.”
State v. Bales, 410 P.3d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant further contends that the trial court erred by excluding testimony pertaining to a possible mental disease or defect, which could be relevant under ORS 161.300 to the mens rea on each conviction.”
State v. Hickam, 692 P.2d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “” Before trial, defendant filed notice of his intent to rely on lack of responsibility and lack of intent defenses, pursuant to ORS 161.300 3 and 161.309. 4 After examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist six months before trial, however, defendant withdrew those defenses.”
State v. Stockett, 565 P.2d 739 (Or. 1977). “” ORS 161.300: "Evidence that the actor suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether he did or did not have the intent which is an element of the crime.”
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.