161.370
Proceedings upon finding of unfitness; commitment; rules. (1) When the defendant’s fitness
to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court as
described in ORS 161.363.
(2)(a) If the
court determines under ORS 161.363 that the defendant lacks fitness to proceed,
the criminal proceeding against the defendant shall be suspended and the court
shall proceed in accordance with this subsection.
(b) After making
the determination under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the court shall
receive a recommendation from a community mental health program director or the
director’s designee, and from any local entity that would be responsible for
treating the defendant if the defendant were to be released in the community,
concerning whether appropriate community restoration services are present and
available in the community.
(c) If the
parties agree as to the appropriate action under this section, the court may,
after making all findings required by law, enter any order authorized by this
section. If the parties do not agree as to the appropriate action, the court
and the parties shall, at a hearing, consider an appropriate action in the
case, and the court shall make a determination and enter an order necessary to
implement the action. In determining the appropriate action, the court shall
consider the primary and secondary release criteria as defined in ORS 135.230,
the least restrictive option appropriate for the defendant, the needs of the
defendant and the interests of justice. Actions may include but are not limited
to:
(A) Commitment
for the defendant to gain or regain fitness to proceed under subsection (3) or
(4) of this section;
(B) An order to
engage in community restoration services, as recommended by the community
mental health program director or designee, under subsection (6) of this
section;
(C) Commencement
of a civil commitment proceeding under ORS 426.070 to 426.170, 426.701 or
427.235 to 427.292;
(D) Commencement
of protective proceedings under ORS chapter 125; or
(E) Dismissal of
the charges pursuant to ORS 135.755 and in accordance with ORS 161.367 (6).
(d) If the court,
while considering or ordering an appropriate action under this subsection, does
not order the defendant committed to a state mental hospital or other facility,
but finds that appropriate community restoration services are not present and
available in the community, for any defendant remaining in custody after such
determination, the court shall set a review hearing seven days from the date of
the determination under paragraph (a) of this subsection. At the review
hearing, the court shall consider all relevant information and determine if
commitment to the state mental hospital or other facility is appropriate under
subsection (3) or (4) of this section, or if another action described in
paragraph (c) of this subsection is appropriate. At the conclusion of the
hearing the court shall enter an order in accordance with the defendant’s
constitutional rights to due process.
(e) If the court
determines that the appropriate action in the case is an order for the
defendant to engage in community restoration services, but the defendant has a
pending criminal case, warrant or hold in one or more other jurisdictions, the
other jurisdictions shall, within two judicial days of becoming aware of the
proceeding under this section, communicate with the court and the other
jurisdictions, if applicable, to develop a plan to address the interests of all
jurisdictions in the defendant in a timely manner.
(3)(a) If the
most serious offense in the charging instrument is a felony, the court shall
commit the defendant to the custody of the superintendent of a state mental
hospital or director of a facility designated by the Oregon Health Authority if
the defendant is at least 18 years of age, or to the custody of the director of
a secure intensive community inpatient facility designated by the authority if
the defendant is under 18 years of age, if the court makes the following
findings:
(A) The defendant
requires a hospital level of care due to public safety concerns if the
defendant is not hospitalized or in custody or the acuity of symptoms of the
defendant’s qualifying mental disorder; and
(B) Based on the
findings resulting from a consultation described in ORS 161.365 (1), if
applicable, from any information provided by community-based mental health
providers or any other sources, and primary and secondary release criteria as
defined in ORS 135.230, the appropriate community restoration services are not
present and available in the community.
(b) If the
defendant is committed under this subsection, the community mental health
program director, or director’s designee, shall at regular intervals, during
any period of commitment, review available community restoration services and
maintain communication with the defendant and the superintendent of the state
mental hospital or director of the facility in order to facilitate an efficient
transition to treatment in the community when ordered.
(c) If the court
does not order the commitment of the defendant under this subsection, the court
shall proceed in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of this section to determine
and order an appropriate action other than commitment.
(4)(a) If the
most serious offense in the charging instrument is a misdemeanor, the court may
not commit the defendant to the custody of the superintendent of a state mental
hospital or director of a facility designated by the Oregon Health Authority if
the defendant is at least 18 years of age, or to the custody of the director of
a secure intensive community inpatient facility designated by the authority if
the defendant is under 18 years of age, unless the court:
(A)(i) Receives a
recommendation from a certified evaluator that the defendant requires a
hospital level of care due to the acuity of symptoms of the defendant’s
qualifying mental disorder; and
(ii) Receives a
recommendation from a community mental health program director, or director’s
designee, that the appropriate community restoration services are not present
and available in the community; or
(B) Determines
that the defendant requires a hospital level of care after making all of the
following written findings:
(i) The defendant
needs a hospital level of care due to the acuity of the symptoms of the
defendant’s qualifying mental disorder;
(ii) There are
public safety concerns; and
(iii) The
appropriate community restoration services are not present and available in the
community.
(b) If at the
time of determining the appropriate action for the case, the court is
considering commitment under paragraph (a)(A) of this subsection and:
(A) Has not
received a recommendation from a certified evaluator as to whether the
defendant requires a hospital level of care due to the acuity of symptoms of
the defendant’s qualifying mental disorder, the court shall order a certified
evaluator to make such a recommendation.
(B) Has not
received a recommendation from the community mental health program director or
designee concerning whether appropriate community restoration services are
present and available in the community, the court shall order the director or
designee to make such a recommendation.
(c) If the court
does not order the commitment of the defendant under this subsection, the court
shall proceed in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of this section to determine
and order an appropriate action other than commitment.
(d) If the
defendant is committed under this subsection, the community mental health
program director, or director’s designee, shall at regular intervals, during
any period of commitment, review available community restoration services and
maintain communication with the defendant and the superintendent of the state
mental hospital or director of the facility in order to facilitate an efficient
transition to treatment in the community when ordered.
(5) If the most
serious offense in the charging instrument is a violation, the court may not
commit the defendant to the custody of the superintendent of a state mental
hospital or director of a facility designated by the Oregon Health Authority if
the defendant is at least 18 years of age, or to the custody of the director of
a secure intensive community inpatient facility designated by the authority if
the defendant is under 18 years of age.
(6)(a) If the
court does not order the commitment of the defendant under subsection (3) or
(4) of this section, if commitment is precluded under subsection (5) of this
section or if the court determines that care other than commitment would better
serve the defendant and the community, the court shall release the defendant,
pursuant to an order that the defendant engage in community restoration
services, until the defendant has gained or regained fitness to proceed, or
until the court finds there is no substantial probability that the defendant
will, within the foreseeable future, gain or regain fitness to proceed. The
court may not order the defendant to engage in community restoration services
in another county without permission from the other county.
(b) The court may
order a community mental health program director coordinating the defendant’s
treatment in the community to provide the court with status reports on the
defendant’s progress in gaining or regaining fitness to proceed. The director
shall provide a status report if the defendant is not complying with
court-ordered restoration services.
(c) A community
mental health program director coordinating the defendant’s treatment in the
community shall notify the court if the defendant gains or regains fitness to
proceed. The notice shall be filed with the court and may be filed
electronically. The clerk of the court shall cause copies of the notice to be
delivered to both the district attorney and the counsel for the defendant.
(d) When a
defendant is ordered to engage in community restoration services under this
subsection:
(A) The court may
place conditions that the court deems appropriate on the release, including the
requirement that the defendant regularly report to a state mental hospital or a
certified evaluator for examination to determine if the defendant has gained or
regained fitness to proceed.
(B) Following
discharge from commitment at a state mental hospital or other facility, and the
court finds that the defendant has violated a condition of the release
agreement, the court may order that the defendant be recommitted to the custody
of the superintendent of the state mental hospital or director of the facility.
(7)(a) As part of
an order committing the defendant under this section, the court shall
additionally determine whether the defendant may only be discharged to a
facility that is of the most restrictive class under the classification system
described in ORS 426.035, if the superintendent of the state mental hospital or
director of the facility to which the defendant is committed determines that
the defendant no longer requires a hospital level of care due to the acuity of
the symptoms of the defendant’s qualifying mental disorder.
(b) When making
the determination described in this subsection, the court shall consider the
charges, primary and secondary release criteria as defined in ORS 135.230 and
public safety concerns, and may consider any other information relevant to the
court’s determination.
(c) A
determination described in this subsection is a critical stage of the
proceeding for purposes of ORS 147.500 to 147.550.
(d) The court may
reconsider a determination described in this subsection under the same
circumstances in which the court may modify a release decision as defined in
ORS 135.230.
(e) A defendant
whose release was denied under ORS 135.240 is not eligible for discharge, from
the state hospital or other facility to which the defendant was committed under
this section, to any other facility for treatment to gain or regain fitness to proceed.
(8) The Oregon
Health Authority shall establish by rule standards for the recommendation
provided to the court described in subsection (2) of this section. [1971 c.743 §52;
1975 c.380 §5; 1993 c.238 §3; 1999 c.931 §§1,2; 2005 c.685 §6; 2009 c.595 §107;
2011 c.508 §1; 2011 c.724 §8; 2015 c.130 §2; 2017 c.49 §1; 2017 c.233 §3; 2017
c.628 §1; 2017 c.634 §16; 2019 c.311 §5; 2019 c.318 §2; 2019 c.538 §2a; 2021
c.395 §7; 2023 c.227 §2; 2025 c.559 §52]
Notes of Decisions
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 55× “The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 41× “” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
State v. Zamora-Skaar, 480 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 15× “OSH defended against the contempt alle- gation based on an affirmative defense of inability to comply with the seven- day timeline.”
State v. Simon, 433 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “ORS 161.370(1). 24 When the parties do disagree, so that competency is a contested issue, the trial court must conduct a hearing at which it must "consider all relevant evidence," "weigh medical *867 evidence," and "make appropriate determinations regarding a defendant's"…”
Snyder v. Amsberry, 474 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “370(1)(a) further states that “[w]hen the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.” While the fitness to proceed statutes permit a court to order a psychological examination, such an examination is not mandated.”
Sharris v. Commonwealth, 106 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. 2018).
· cites it 2× “6a ; Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370 ; 50 Pa. Cons. Stat.”
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 99× “On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
State v. Peterson, 689 P.2d 985 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “If the court determines that defendant is not now competent to stand trial, further proceedings will be governed by ORS 161.370. [9] Reversed and remanded for a new trial.”
Lopez v. Oregon State Hosp., 342 Or. App. 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Oregon State Hospital (OSH)1 appeals from a con- tempt judgment for failing to admit plaintiff, a criminal defendant, into OSH within seven days of his commitment under ORS 161.370, which provides for restorative commit- ments for defendants who lack fitness to proceed.”
State v. Ward, 437 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The court held a hearing pursuant to ORS 161.370, with experts from both sides presenting competing perspectives on defendant's trial fitness.”
State v. Heriman, 546 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 19× “365 (2019), and ORS 161.370 (2019). Together, those statutes outline the procedures for a court to follow when a defendant’s fitness to proceed has been brought into question.”
State v. Cunningham, 995 P.2d 561 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “" Also, ORS 161.370 provides, in part: "(1) When the defendant's fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(1) — 7 cases
State v. Simon, 433 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“ORS 161.370(1). 24 When the parties do disagree, so that competency is a contested issue, the trial court must conduct a hearing at which it must "consider all relevant evidence," "weigh medical *867 evidence," and "make appropriate determinations regarding a defendant's"…”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(1)(a) — 2 cases
Snyder v. Amsberry, 474 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“370(1)(a) further states that “[w]hen the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.” While the fitness to proceed statutes permit a court to order a psychological examination, such an examination is not mandated.”
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(10) — 5 cases
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(10)(a) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(10)(b) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(10)(b)(A) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(11) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(12) — 2 cases
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(13) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(15) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2) — 11 cases
State v. Zamora-Skaar, 480 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“OSH defended against the contempt alle- gation based on an affirmative defense of inability to comply with the seven- day timeline.”
Snyder v. Amsberry, 474 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“370(1)(a) further states that “[w]hen the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.” While the fitness to proceed statutes permit a court to order a psychological examination, such an examination is not mandated.”
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Zamora-Skaar, 480 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“OSH defended against the contempt alle- gation based on an affirmative defense of inability to comply with the seven- day timeline.”
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
State v. Heriman, 546 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“365 (2019), and ORS 161.370 (2019). Together, those statutes outline the procedures for a court to follow when a defendant’s fitness to proceed has been brought into question.”
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Zamora-Skaar, 480 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“OSH defended against the contempt alle- gation based on an affirmative defense of inability to comply with the seven- day timeline.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
State v. Heriman, 546 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“365 (2019), and ORS 161.370 (2019). Together, those statutes outline the procedures for a court to follow when a defendant’s fitness to proceed has been brought into question.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2)(c)(B) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(2)(c)(F) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(3)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(4) — 3 cases
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(4)(a) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(4)(b) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(4)(c) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(5) — 4 cases
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(5)(b)(C) — 3 cases
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(6)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
State v. Zamora-Skaar, 480 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“OSH defended against the contempt alle- gation based on an affirmative defense of inability to comply with the seven- day timeline.”
Oregon State Hosp. v. Butts, 359 P.3d 1187 (Or. 2015).
“The court held that ORS 161.370 implicitly authorized the trial court to issue the Sell order but also concluded that the particular order at issue did not comply with the due process requirements enunciated in Sell.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(7) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(7)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(8) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(9) — 3 cases
State v. Lopes, 322 P.3d 512 (Or. 2014).
“” ORS 161.370 (5)(b). On notification, the trial court must determine whether it concurs and take appropriate action.”
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(9)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.370(9)(b) — 1 case
State v. Givens, 517 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“On appeal, defendant contends that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 161.370 require dismissal of his refiled charges so long as he remained unfit to stand trial, regardless of whether he was discharged from commitment.”
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.