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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.315 (2026)

Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant; limitations; report

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

      161.315 Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant; limitations; report. (1) Upon filing of notice or the introduction of evidence by the defendant as provided in ORS 161.309, the state shall have the right to have at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist of its selection examine the defendant. The state shall file notice with the court of its intention to have the defendant examined.

      (2)(a) Upon filing of the notice, the court, in its discretion, may order the defendant committed to a state mental hospital or any other suitable facility, if the defendant is 18 years of age or older, for observation and examination, which may include treatment as permitted by law.

      (b) If the defendant is under 18 years of age, upon filing of the notice, the court, in its discretion, may order the defendant committed to a secure intensive community inpatient facility designated by the Oregon Health Authority for examination.

      (c) The state mental hospital or other facility may retain custody of a defendant committed under this subsection only for the duration necessary to complete the observation and examination of the defendant, not to exceed 30 days.

      (3) If the defendant objects to the examiner chosen by the state, the court for good cause shown may direct the state to select a different examiner.

      (4) An examiner performing an examination on the issue of insanity of a defendant under this section is not obligated to examine the defendant for fitness to proceed unless, during the examination, the examiner determines that the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question. If, during the examination, the examiner determines that the defendant’s fitness to proceed is in doubt, the examiner shall report the issue to the court and to the superintendent of the state mental hospital or the superintendent’s designee, or to the director of the facility to which the defendant is committed. The superintendent or director may:

      (a) Return the defendant to the facility from which the defendant was transported; or

      (b) Inform the court and the parties that the defendant should remain at the state mental hospital or other facility for the purpose of an examination under ORS 161.365. If neither party objects, the court may order an examination under ORS 161.365 without holding a hearing.

      (5) A report resulting from an examination under this section may be filed with the court electronically.

      (6)(a) Reports resulting from examinations conducted under this section are confidential and may be made available only:

      (A) To the court, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, agent of the prosecuting or defense attorney, defendant, community mental health program director or designee and any facility in which the defendant is housed; or

      (B) As ordered by a court.

      (b) Any facility in which a defendant is housed may not use a report prepared under this section to support a disciplinary action against the defendant.

      (c) Nothing in this subsection prohibits the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney or agent of the prosecuting or defense attorney from discussing the contents of a report prepared under this section with witnesses or victims as otherwise permitted by law. [1971 c.743 §42; 1977 c.380 §3; 2007 c.14 §5; 2009 c.595 §101; 2011 c.724 §10; 2017 c.48 §2; 2019 c.311 §3; 2019 c.538 §3a]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Moore, 927 P.2d 1073 (Or. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Moore, 927 P.2d 1073 (Or. 1996). · cites it 18× “Suckow, a state-hired psychiatrist, examined defendant pursuant to ORS 161.315 and 163.135(5). [5] Defendant then withdrew his notice of intent to rely upon the defense of insanity; however, he continued to assert the defense of EED.”
Rinne v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 443 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Under that provision, the standards for discharge were as follows: "(1) Any person placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board or the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 161.315 to 161.351 shall be discharged at such time as the agency having…”
State v. Zielinski, 404 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “After such notice is served, “the state may have at least one *778 psychiatrist or licensed psychologist of its selection examine the defendant in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as provided in ORS 161.315.” ORS 163.135(5). In Ott , the Supreme Court explained…”
State v. Mains, 669 P.2d 1112 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “The state responded by obtaining an order, ORS 161.315, requiring the defendant to submit to a third psychiatric examination to determine if defendant was not responsible for criminal conduct because of mental disease or defect under ORS 161.”
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Woodrich, 566 P.2d 859 (Or. 1977). · cites it 4× “305, cannot be compelled in a psychiatric examination under ORS 161.315 to answer questions "concerning his conduct relating to the offense charged".”
State v. Corbin, 516 P.2d 1314 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “A witness testified that about an hour before the shooting the defendant told him he was “* * * 'tired of hassling’ ” and was “* * * 'going to end it tonight.”
State v. Fulmer, 211 P.3d 942 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “The state then exercised its right under ORS 161.315 to have defendant examined by a mental health professional of its own choice.”
State Ex Rel. Russell v. Jones, 647 P.2d 904 (Or. 1982). · cites it 2× “" [2] A presentence investigation differs in this respect from a compulsory psychiatric examination under ORS 161.315 for evidence of mental disease or defect.”
State ex rel. Ott v. Cushing, 617 P.2d 610 (Or. 1980). · cites it 3× “This is a mandamus proceeding in which the petitioner, who is the defendant in a criminal prosecution for the crime of murder, seeks to modify an order issued by the respondent, the trial judge before whom that proceeding is pending, which directed the defendant to submit to a…”
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Richardson, 555 P.2d 202 (Or. 1976). · cites it 2× “ORS 161.315. State v. Corbin, 15 Or. App.”
Rinne v. PSRB, 533 P.3d 777 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “351(1)2 (“Any person placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board under ORS 161.315 to 161.351 shall be discharged at such time as the board, upon a hearing, finds by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the person is no longer affected by a…”
Walters v. PSRB, 341 Or. App. 41 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “346(1)(a) provides: “When the Psychiatric Security Review Board conducts a hearing under ORS 161.315 to 161.351, the board shall enter an order and make findings in support of the order.”
Show all 33 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.