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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.345 (2026)

Age as a defense in certain cases

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

      163.345 Age as a defense in certain cases. (1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355, 163.365, 163.385, 163.395, 163.415, 163.425, 163.427 or 163.435 in which the victim’s lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense.

      (2) In any prosecution under ORS 163.408, when the object used to commit the unlawful sexual penetration was the hand or any part thereof of the actor and in which the victim’s lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense.

      (3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.445 in which the victim’s lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense if the victim was at least 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offense. [1971 c.743 §108; 1991 c.386 §3; 1991 c.830 §4; 1999 c.626 §24; amendments by 1999 c.626 §45 repealed by 2001 c.884 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: State v. Stamper, 106 P.3d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stamper, 106 P.3d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “” *426 Logically, there are two possible readings of ORS 163.345. First, the legislature intended that the requirement that “the victim does not consent” could be satisfied by evidence that the victim was incapable of consenting “by reason of being less than a specified age.”
State v. Ofodrinwa, 300 P.3d 154 (Or. 2013). · cites it 8× “Specifically, the 1991 legislature amended ORS 163.345 to provide, “In any prosecution under ORS 163.”
Bartz v. State of Oregon, 825 P.2d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “One hundred and twenty-five days later, on February 6, 1990, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel, because his trial counsel did not inform him of a potential statutory defense under ORS…”
State v. Carey-Martin, 430 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “345 provides a defense to second-and third-degree rape, second- and third-degree sodomy, first- through third-degree sexual abuse; and contributing to a minor's sexual delinquency if the victim's incapacity to consent is solely because they are younger than a certain age.”
State v. Thorp, 2 P.3d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “In addition, ORS 163.345 was enacted to provide a defense for offenders less than three years older than the victim.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Aragorn, 73 P.3d 939 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 20× “g the crime of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree punishable as a felony be performed, agree with each other to cause the performance of the following conduct, to-wit: to unlawfully and knowingly cause [B], a person under the age of 14 years, to engage in sexual contact by having…”
Gutale v. State, 435 P.3d 728 (Or. 2019). “It is impossible to understand the statute of limitations escape clause without recognizing this fact, because the escape clause contains a puzzling reference to "the original or amended petition.”
State v. McCullough, 220 P.3d 1182 (Or. 2009). “See ORS 163.345 (age as a defense to certain crimes); ORS 161.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Fitch, 84 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “435 (contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor is committed by a person 18 years or older); ORS 163.345 (age as a defense to certain crimes).”
State v. McCoy, 521 P.2d 1074 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “035 which labels each defense to theft as a "defense," ORS 163.345 which labels proximity of age a "defense" to statutory rape, ORS 162.”
State v. J. S. W. (In re J. S. W.), 434 P.3d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “He submitted an affidavit in support of his motion in which he averred that, during the 1995 proceedings, he "was not informed" that he had an age-based defense under ORS 163.345 3 or that he "would be subject to lifetime sex offender registration" as a result of his plea.”
State v. Rhoades, 149 P.3d 1259 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “See ORS 163.345(1). The state is right, however, that under these particular circumstances, the victim’s consent to the sexual activity is entirely irrelevant to whether defendant committed the crimes in question.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.345(1) — 6 cases
State v. Stamper, 106 P.3d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “” *426 Logically, there are two possible readings of ORS 163.345. First, the legislature intended that the requirement that “the victim does not consent” could be satisfied by evidence that the victim was incapable of consenting “by reason of being less than a specified age.”
State v. Thorp, 2 P.3d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “In addition, ORS 163.345 was enacted to provide a defense for offenders less than three years older than the victim.”
State v. Rhoades, 149 P.3d 1259 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “See ORS 163.345(1). The state is right, however, that under these particular circumstances, the victim’s consent to the sexual activity is entirely irrelevant to whether defendant committed the crimes in question.”
State v. J. S. W. (In re J. S. W.), 434 P.3d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “He submitted an affidavit in support of his motion in which he averred that, during the 1995 proceedings, he "was not informed" that he had an age-based defense under ORS 163.345 3 or that he "would be subject to lifetime sex offender registration" as a result of his plea.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Aragorn, 73 P.3d 939 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “g the crime of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree punishable as a felony be performed, agree with each other to cause the performance of the following conduct, to-wit: to unlawfully and knowingly cause [B], a person under the age of 14 years, to engage in sexual contact by having…”
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.