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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.305 (2026)

Qualifying mental disorder as affirmative defense

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

      161.305 Qualifying mental disorder as affirmative defense. Qualifying mental disorder constituting insanity under ORS 161.295 is an affirmative defense. [1971 c.743 §38; 1983 c.800 §2; 2017 c.634 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: State v. Stockett, 565 P.2d 739 (Or. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stockett, 565 P.2d 739 (Or. 1977). · cites it 12× “Defendant contended that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested instruction on diminished intent or partial responsibility under ORS 161.305, and the Court of Appeals agreed with that contention.”
State v. Burrow, 653 P.2d 226 (Or. 1982). · cites it 6× “2d 739 (1977), involved the constitutionality of ORS 161.305, which imposed upon a defendant the burden of proving diminished or partial responsibility under ORS 161.”
State v. Peterson, 689 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “" Former ORS 161.305; 161.309(2). He assigns as errors that the court imposed on him, over his objection, the defense of not responsible due to mental disease or defect, found that he presented a substantial danger to others, requiring commitment to a state mental hospital,…”
State v. Amini, 28 P.3d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “295; ORS 161.305. [1] ORS 161.313 provides that, when the issue of insanity under ORS 161.”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “180 (establishing affirmative defenses in prosecutions for driving while suspended or revoked); ORS 161.305 (a “[q]ualifying mental disorder constituting insan- ity * * * is an affirmative defense”).”
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990). · cites it 2× “[7] ORS 161.305 provides: "Mental disease or defect constituting insanity under ORS 161.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Reuter, 700 P.2d 236 (Or. 1985). “” ORS 161.305: “Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility under ORS 161.”
State v. Amini, 15 P.3d 541 (Or. 2000). · cites it 2× “295; ORS 161.305. [1] ORS 161.313 provides that, when the issue of insanity under ORS 161.”
State v. Amini, 15 P.3d 541 (Or. 2000). · cites it 2× “295; ORS 161.305. 1 ORS 161.313 provides that, when the issue of insanity under ORS 161.”
State v. Mendacino, 603 P.2d 1376 (Or. 1979). “” ORS 161.305 (1977): "Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility under ORS 161.”
State v. Joslin, 29 P.3d 1112 (Or. 2001). “See ORS 161.305 (characterizing insanity defense under ORS 161.”
State v. Stilling, 590 P.2d 1223 (Or. 1979). “To resolve the question of whether the instruction at issue here does shift the burden of proof on intent requires an understanding of what exactly it is in the instruction that might shift the burden.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
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.