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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.690 (2026)

Lack of knowledge of age of child as affirmative defense

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

      163.690 Lack of knowledge of age of child as affirmative defense. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution under ORS 163.684, 163.686, 163.687 or 163.693 that the defendant, at the time of engaging in the conduct prohibited therein, did not know and did not have reason to know that the relevant sexually explicit conduct involved a child. [1985 c.557 §7; 1987 c.864 §13; 1991 c.664 §9; 1995 c.768 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: State v. Propp, 345 Or. App. 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Propp, 345 Or. App. 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Propp that the depicted child was under 18 years of age, was codi- fied at ORS 163.690 (1985).4 The parties disagree as to the significance of the legislature excluding the crime of display (section 3) from application of the affirmative defense in section 7.”
State v. Ready, 939 P.2d 117 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “ORS 163.690 also provides an affirmative defense that the defendant did not know or have reason to know that the sexually explicit conduct involved children.”
State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 897 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “555(2)(b); ORS 163.690; ORS 164.035; ORS 164.828; ORS 167.”
United States v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California, 858 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988). “2-05(1) (1985); Or.Rev. Stat. § 163.690 (1987); Tenn.Code Ann.”
State v. Propp, 345 Or. App. 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Propp to know” that the depicted child was under 18 years of age, was codified at ORS 163.690 (1985).4 The parties disagree as to the significance of the legislature excluding the crime of display (section 3) from application of the affirmative defense in section 7.”
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.