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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.645 (2026)

Standards for imposing fines

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

      161.645 Standards for imposing fines. In determining whether to impose a fine and its amount, the court shall consider:

      (1) The financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of a fine will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant; and

      (2) The ability of the defendant to pay a fine on an installment basis or on other conditions to be fixed by the court. [1971 c.743 §78]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Shepherd, 459 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shepherd, 459 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 13× “2 He argues that, under ORS 161.645, the trial court was required to consider his finan- cial resources and the burden that payment of the fine would impose on him, before imposing the fine, and that the court plainly erred by failing to do so.”
State v. Seck, 468 P.3d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “286, in combination with ORS 161.645,” requires the trial court to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a minimum fine.”
State v. Wheeler, 344 P.3d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “625, which provides that “[a] sentence to pay a fine for a felony shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding [specified limits for each class of felony].”
State v. Manoff, 435 P.3d 803 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “Defendant points to ORS 161.645, which requires a court to consider, when imposing such fines, the financial resources of the defendant and the burden the payment of the fine will impose on the defendant.”
State v. Smith, 363 P.3d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Specifically, defendant argues that trial court plainly erred because it is not authorized to impose a fine if there is no evidence that the defendant is able to pay under ORS 161.645, 3 nor is it *568 authorized to impose attorney fees in the absence of evidence of defendant’s…”
State v. Ramsey, 967 P.2d 525 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “ng one proceeding instead of one continuing contempt; that the trial court did not have authority, or in the alternative, did not make the required findings, to sentence defendant to consecutive sentences; and, finally, that the trial court erred in imposing a punitive fine of…”
State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 442 P.3d 1092 (Or. 2019). “The relevant statutes provide only limited guidance as to how the trial court should determine the total amount of the fine: "In determining whether to impose a fine and its amount, the court shall consider: "(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the burden that…”
State v. Shipley, 476 P.3d 971 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “286 (a court “may waive” the minimum fine “if the court finds that requiring payment of the minimum fine would be inconsistent with justice,” and that a court “shall consider” a defendant’s ability to pay in making “its determination” whether to waive the fee), requires an…”
State v. Sanchez, 337 Or. App. 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 17× “When the court questioned whether it had the author- ity to impose less than the amount mandated by the stat- ute, defendant argued that a different statute, ORS 161.645, authorized the court to reduce the fine based on defendant’s financial circumstances.”
State v. Brooks, 396 P.3d 302 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “stablishing that a court may waive the fine for a felony “if the court finds that requiring payment of the minimum fine would be inconsistent with justice in the case” and that, in making that determination, “the court shall consider [,] ” among other things, “[t]he financial…”
State v. Ross, 110 P.3d 630 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” *14 Additionally, ORS 161.645 governs, in general, the court’s authority to impose fines.”
State v. Sanchez, 562 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 17× “When the court questioned whether it had the author- ity to impose less than the amount mandated by the stat- ute, defendant argued that a different statute, ORS 161.645, authorized the court to reduce the fine based on defendant’s financial circumstances.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.645(1) — 2 cases
State v. Manoff, 435 P.3d 803 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Defendant points to ORS 161.645, which requires a court to consider, when imposing such fines, the financial resources of the defendant and the burden the payment of the fine will impose on the defendant.”
State v. Batty, 819 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
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.