163.197 Hazing. (1) A student organization or a
member of a student organization commits the offense of hazing if, as a
condition or precondition of attaining membership in the organization or of
attaining any office or status in the organization, the organization or member
intentionally hazes any member, potential member or person pledged to be a
member of the organization.
(2)(a) A student
organization that violates subsection (1) of this section commits a Class A
violation.
(b) A member of a
student organization who personally violates subsection (1) of this section
commits a Class B violation.
(3) Consent of
the person who is hazed is not a defense in a prosecution under this section.
(4) As used in
this section:
(a) “Haze” means:
(A) To subject an
individual to whipping, beating, striking, branding or electronic shocking, to
place a harmful substance on an individual’s body or to subject an individual
to other similar forms of physical brutality;
(B) To subject an
individual to sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a
small space or other similar activity that subjects the individual to an
unreasonable risk of harm or adversely affects the physical health or safety of
the individual;
(C) To compel an
individual to consume food, liquid, alcohol, cannabis, controlled substances or
other substances that subject the individual to an unreasonable risk of harm or
adversely affect the physical health or safety of the individual; or
(D) To induce,
cause or require an individual to perform a duty or task that involves the
commission of a crime or an act of hazing.
(b) “Member”
includes volunteers, coaches and faculty advisers of a student organization.
(c) “Student
organization” means a fraternity, sorority, athletic team or other organization
that is organized or operating on a college, university or elementary or
secondary school campus for the purpose of providing members an opportunity to
participate in student activities of the college, university or elementary or
secondary school. [1983 c.202 §2; 1999 c.1051 §152; 2009 c.493 §1; 2017 c.21 §42]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case:
United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019).
United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019).
“31 (A) (Lexis 2014) ("substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm"); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.197(4)(a)(B), (C) (2017) ("unreasonable risk of harm").”
State v. Damofle, 750 P.2d 518 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “" ORS 163.197 defines "hazing" as subjecting a person to "bodily danger or physical harm or a likelihood of bodily danger or physical harm.”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“For example, SB 302 added the word “cannabis” to ORS 163.197(4)(a)(C) (defining “haze” as to “compel an individual to consume food, liquid, alcohol, cannabis, controlled substances or other substances that subject the individual to an unreasonable risk of harm or adversely…”
Burcham v. Franke, 335 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“]”); ORS 163.197(3) (providing that, for the purposes of the crime of hazing, the “[c]onsent of the person who is hazed is not a defense”); ORS 163.”
State v. Lindquist, 86 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Rather, the probation statutes establish a separate scheme of sanctions altogether.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.197(3): 1 case
Burcham v. Franke, 335 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“]”); ORS 163.197(3) (providing that, for the purposes of the crime of hazing, the “[c]onsent of the person who is hazed is not a defense”); ORS 163.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.197(4)(a)(B): 1 case
United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019).
“31 (A) (Lexis 2014) ("substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm"); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.197(4)(a)(B), (C) (2017) ("unreasonable risk of harm").”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.197(4)(a)(C): 1 case
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“For example, SB 302 added the word “cannabis” to ORS 163.197(4)(a)(C) (defining “haze” as to “compel an individual to consume food, liquid, alcohol, cannabis, controlled substances or other substances that subject the individual to an unreasonable risk of harm or adversely…”
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.