161.735
Procedure for determining whether defendant dangerous. (1) Upon motion of the district
attorney, and if, in the opinion of the court, there is reason to believe that
the defendant falls within ORS 161.725, the court shall order a presentence
investigation and an examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist. The court
may appoint one or more qualified psychiatrists or psychologists to examine the
defendant in the local correctional facility.
(2) All costs
connected with the examination shall be paid by the state.
(3) The
examination performed pursuant to this section shall be completed within 30
days, subject to additional extensions not exceeding 30 days on order of the
court. Each psychiatrist and psychologist appointed to examine a defendant
under this section shall file with the court a written report of findings and
conclusions, including an evaluation of whether the defendant is suffering from
a severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.
(4) No statement
made by a defendant under this section or ORS 137.124 or 423.090 shall be used
against the defendant in any civil proceeding or in any other criminal
proceeding.
(5) Upon receipt
of the examination and presentence reports the court shall set a time for a
presentence hearing, unless the district attorney and the defendant waive the
hearing. At the presentence hearing the district attorney and the defendant may
question any psychiatrist or psychologist who examined the defendant pursuant
to this section.
(6) If, after
considering the evidence in the case or in the presentence hearing, the jury
or, if the defendant waives the right to a jury trial, the court finds that the
defendant comes within ORS 161.725, the court may sentence the defendant as a
dangerous offender.
(7) In
determining whether a defendant has been previously convicted of a felony for
purposes of ORS 161.725, the court shall consider as prima facie evidence of
the previous conviction:
(a) A copy of the
judicial record of the conviction which copy is authenticated under ORS 40.510;
(b) A copy of the
fingerprints of the subject of that conviction which copy is authenticated
under ORS 40.510; and
(c) Testimony
that the fingerprints of the subject of that conviction are those of the
defendant.
(8) Subsection
(7) of this section does not prohibit proof of the previous conviction by any
other procedure.
(9) The facts
required to be found to sentence a defendant as a dangerous offender under this
section are enhancement facts, as defined in ORS 136.760, and ORS 136.765 to
136.785 apply to making determinations of those facts. [1971 c.743 §86; 1973
c.836 §341; 1981 c.892 §89a; 1983 c.740 §27; 1987 c.248 §1; 1999 c.163 §9; 2005
c.463 §§10,15; 2007 c.16 §5]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Parkerson (2023)
or · cites it 33×
“He challenges that sentence, contending that (1) the trial court violated ORS 161.735 when it sentenced him as a dangerous offender without reviewing new presentence investigation (PSI) and psychological eval- uation reports that had been prepared specifically for this case; and…”
Teague v. Palmateer (2002)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“725 (1987) and ORS 161.735 (1987), as a dangerous offender, based in part on a finding by the sentencing court that he suffers from a severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.”
State v. Cloutier (2011)
or · cites it 2×
“ORS 161.735. At the hearing, the state introduced an affidavit of the examining psychiatrist.”
State v. Huntley (1986)
or · cites it 6×
“725 provides: “The maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a dangerous offender is 30 years, if the court finds that because of the dangerousness of the defendant an extended period of confined correctional treatment or custody is required for the…”
State v. Dodson (1976)
orctapp · cites it 9×
“ORS 161.735 sets forth the procedure for determining whether a defendant is "suffering from a severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.”
State v. Hunter (1982)
orctapp · cites it 7×
“Klenk, 19 Or App 684, 687 , 528 P2d 1092 (1974), a case involving psychiatric findings under ORS 161.735, we noted: “It is true that the examining psychiatrist’s diagnosis as such was not framed in the legal terminology of the statute, as the defendant asserts.”
State v. Parkerson (2022)
orctapp · cites it 15×
“1 Approximately four months after his conviction and sentencing for attempted aggravated murder and first- degree assault, defendant was indicted for the assault for which he was convicted in this case.”
State v. Bateman (1989)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“The defendant asked the court to reset the hearing and to order the psychiatrist to appear for cross-examination. The court denied the request and sentenced the defendant as a dangerous offender.”
State v. Trice (1997)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“737, the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment *22 for a dangerous offender is 30 years, if the court finds that because of the dangerousness of the defendant an extended period of confined correctional treatment or custody is required for the protection of…”
State v. Worth (2015)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“725 and ORS 161.735). As originally enacted in 1971, those statutes were designed to provide an enhanced maximum punishment, and extended supervision, of offenders who possess a “severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.”
State v. Smith (1984)
orctapp · cites it 5×
“725 provides in pertinent part: “The maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a dangerous offender is 30 years, if the court finds that because of the dangerousness of the defendant an extended period of confined correctional treatment or custody is required…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.735(1) — 11 cases
State v. Parkerson (2023)
or
“He challenges that sentence, contending that (1) the trial court violated ORS 161.735 when it sentenced him as a dangerous offender without reviewing new presentence investigation (PSI) and psychological eval- uation reports that had been prepared specifically for this case; and…”
State v. Parkerson (2022)
orctapp
“1 Approximately four months after his conviction and sentencing for attempted aggravated murder and first- degree assault, defendant was indicted for the assault for which he was convicted in this case.”
State v. Hunter (1982)
orctapp
“Klenk, 19 Or App 684, 687 , 528 P2d 1092 (1974), a case involving psychiatric findings under ORS 161.735, we noted: “It is true that the examining psychiatrist’s diagnosis as such was not framed in the legal terminology of the statute, as the defendant asserts.”
State v. Dodson (1976)
orctapp
“ORS 161.735 sets forth the procedure for determining whether a defendant is "suffering from a severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.735(1)(2)(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.735(3) — 12 cases
State v. Hunter (1982)
orctapp
“Klenk, 19 Or App 684, 687 , 528 P2d 1092 (1974), a case involving psychiatric findings under ORS 161.735, we noted: “It is true that the examining psychiatrist’s diagnosis as such was not framed in the legal terminology of the statute, as the defendant asserts.”
State v. Smith (1984)
orctapp
“725 provides in pertinent part: “The maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a dangerous offender is 30 years, if the court finds that because of the dangerousness of the defendant an extended period of confined correctional treatment or custody is required…”
State v. Parkerson (2023)
or
“He challenges that sentence, contending that (1) the trial court violated ORS 161.735 when it sentenced him as a dangerous offender without reviewing new presentence investigation (PSI) and psychological eval- uation reports that had been prepared specifically for this case; and…”
State v. Dodson (1976)
orctapp
“ORS 161.735 sets forth the procedure for determining whether a defendant is "suffering from a severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.735(4) — 4 cases
State v. Parkerson (2023)
or
“He challenges that sentence, contending that (1) the trial court violated ORS 161.735 when it sentenced him as a dangerous offender without reviewing new presentence investigation (PSI) and psychological eval- uation reports that had been prepared specifically for this case; and…”
State v. Parkerson (2022)
orctapp
“1 Approximately four months after his conviction and sentencing for attempted aggravated murder and first- degree assault, defendant was indicted for the assault for which he was convicted in this case.”
State v. Hunter (1982)
orctapp
“Klenk, 19 Or App 684, 687 , 528 P2d 1092 (1974), a case involving psychiatric findings under ORS 161.735, we noted: “It is true that the examining psychiatrist’s diagnosis as such was not framed in the legal terminology of the statute, as the defendant asserts.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.735(5) — 8 cases
State v. Bateman (1989)
orctapp
“The defendant asked the court to reset the hearing and to order the psychiatrist to appear for cross-examination. The court denied the request and sentenced the defendant as a dangerous offender.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.735(6) — 4 cases
State v. Huntley (1986)
or
“725 provides: “The maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a dangerous offender is 30 years, if the court finds that because of the dangerousness of the defendant an extended period of confined correctional treatment or custody is required for the…”
State v. Hunter (1982)
orctapp
“Klenk, 19 Or App 684, 687 , 528 P2d 1092 (1974), a case involving psychiatric findings under ORS 161.735, we noted: “It is true that the examining psychiatrist’s diagnosis as such was not framed in the legal terminology of the statute, as the defendant asserts.”
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.