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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.325 (2026)

Ignorance or mistake as a defense

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

      163.325 Ignorance or mistake as a defense. (1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the criminality of conduct depends on a child’s being under the age of 16, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16.

      (2) When criminality depends on the child’s being under a specified age other than 16, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be above the specified age at the time of the alleged offense.

      (3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the victim’s lack of consent is based solely upon the incapacity of the victim to consent because the victim is mentally incapacitated, physically helpless or incapable of appraising the nature of the victim’s conduct, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for the victim’s incapacity to consent.

      (4) In any prosecution under ORS 163.415 or 163.425 in which the victim’s lack of consent is not based on the incapacity of the victim to consent because of the victim’s age, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that, at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant reasonably believed that the victim consented to the sexual contact, sexual intercourse or oral or anal intercourse. [1971 c.743 §106; 2021 c.82 §3; 2021 c.410 §1]

 

      163.330 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      163.335 [1971 c.743 §107; repealed by 1977 c.844 §2]

 

      163.340 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Carlisle, 515 P.3d 867 (Or. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carlisle, 515 P.3d 867 (Or. 2022). · cites it 46× “The most pertinent of those contextual statutes is ORS 163.325, which the leg- islature also adopted in 1971 and which addressed proof of a culpable mental state when a victim’s lack of consent to sexual offense was based on age or mental or physical inca- pacity.”
State v. Woods, 505 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 18× “Notably, the court in Haltom did discuss the affir- mative defense statute, ORS 163.325, as relevant context for interpreting what the legislature intended with respect to the “does not consent” element of second-degree sexual abuse under ORS 163.”
State v. Haltom, 472 P.3d 246 (Or. 2020). · cites it 12× “ORS 163.325 The state points to ORS 163.325 as additional context supporting its position that the legislature did not intend that a knowing mental state attach to the “does not consent” requirement in ORS 163.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). · cites it 3× “See ORS 163.325(1) (providing that, in such circumstances, “it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16”).”
State v. Phelps, 920 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “In his first assignment of error, defendant contends: “The trial court erred by finding ORS 163.325(3) does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proving an element of the state’s case to the defendant and by giving [a] corresponding jury instruction [to that effect].”
United States v. Wilson, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 2× “02 (West 2007); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 163.325 (West 2007); 18 Pa.”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “, ORS 163.325(3) (for certain sexual offenses “in which the victim’s lack of consent is based solely upon the incapac- ity of the victim to consent because the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, it is an affirmative defense for the…”
Garnett v. State, 632 A.2d 797 (Md. 1993). · cites it 2× “18, § 3102 (1983) (defining critical age at 14); W.”
State v. Propp, 345 Or. App. 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “Evidence directed at determining which mental state the legislature might have intended to 2 We note that, in response to Haltom, the legislature materially amended ORS 163.325 in 2021. Or Laws 2021, ch 410, § 1.”
State v. Ramoz, 483 P.3d 615 (Or. 2021). “” ORS 163.325(3). Cite as 367 Or 670 (2021) 673 that she was “incapable of consent by reason of * * * mental incapacitation or physical helplessness.”
State v. Gerig, 444 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Additionally, after the initial briefing was complete, defendant filed a supplemental brief that included supplemental assignments of error raising as plain error the trial court's instructions to the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts, and to the trial court's…”
Fleming, Mark Alexander, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “04(a) (age 13); Or. Rev.Stat. § 163.325(1), (2) (age 16); 18 Pa.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.325(1) — 6 cases
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “See ORS 163.325(1) (providing that, in such circumstances, “it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16”).”
State v. Carlisle, 515 P.3d 867 (Or. 2022). “The most pertinent of those contextual statutes is ORS 163.325, which the leg- islature also adopted in 1971 and which addressed proof of a culpable mental state when a victim’s lack of consent to sexual offense was based on age or mental or physical inca- pacity.”
Fleming, Mark Alexander, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “04(a) (age 13); Or. Rev.Stat. § 163.325(1), (2) (age 16); 18 Pa.”
State v. Chavez-Meza, 456 P.3d 322 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.325(2) — 11 cases
State v. Carlisle, 515 P.3d 867 (Or. 2022). “The most pertinent of those contextual statutes is ORS 163.325, which the leg- islature also adopted in 1971 and which addressed proof of a culpable mental state when a victim’s lack of consent to sexual offense was based on age or mental or physical inca- pacity.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “See ORS 163.325(1) (providing that, in such circumstances, “it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16”).”
State v. Haltom, 472 P.3d 246 (Or. 2020). “ORS 163.325 The state points to ORS 163.325 as additional context supporting its position that the legislature did not intend that a knowing mental state attach to the “does not consent” requirement in ORS 163.”
State v. Propp, 345 Or. App. 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Evidence directed at determining which mental state the legislature might have intended to 2 We note that, in response to Haltom, the legislature materially amended ORS 163.325 in 2021. Or Laws 2021, ch 410, § 1.”
State v. Nacoste, 356 P.3d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.325(3) — 18 cases
State v. Woods, 505 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Notably, the court in Haltom did discuss the affir- mative defense statute, ORS 163.325, as relevant context for interpreting what the legislature intended with respect to the “does not consent” element of second-degree sexual abuse under ORS 163.”
State v. Phelps, 920 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “In his first assignment of error, defendant contends: “The trial court erred by finding ORS 163.325(3) does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proving an element of the state’s case to the defendant and by giving [a] corresponding jury instruction [to that effect].”
State v. Carlisle, 515 P.3d 867 (Or. 2022). “The most pertinent of those contextual statutes is ORS 163.325, which the leg- islature also adopted in 1971 and which addressed proof of a culpable mental state when a victim’s lack of consent to sexual offense was based on age or mental or physical inca- pacity.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “See ORS 163.325(1) (providing that, in such circumstances, “it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16”).”
State v. Haltom, 472 P.3d 246 (Or. 2020). “ORS 163.325 The state points to ORS 163.325 as additional context supporting its position that the legislature did not intend that a knowing mental state attach to the “does not consent” requirement in ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.325(4) — 1 case
State v. Carlisle, 515 P.3d 867 (Or. 2022). “The most pertinent of those contextual statutes is ORS 163.325, which the leg- islature also adopted in 1971 and which addressed proof of a culpable mental state when a victim’s lack of consent to sexual offense was based on age or mental or physical inca- pacity.”
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.