419C.411
Disposition order; factors to be considered; finding of responsible except for
insanity. (1) At
the termination of the hearing or hearings in the proceeding or after entry of
an order under ORS 419C.067, the court shall enter an appropriate order
directing the disposition to be made of the case.
(2) The court
shall find a youth responsible except for insanity if:
(a) The youth
asserted qualifying mental disorder as a defense as provided in ORS 419C.524;
and
(b) The court
determined by a preponderance of the evidence that, as a result of a qualifying
mental disorder at the time the youth committed the act alleged in the
petition, the youth lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the nature
and quality of the act or to conform the youth’s conduct to the requirements of
law.
(3) Except as
otherwise provided in subsections (6) and (7) of this section, in determining
the disposition of the case, the court shall consider each of the following:
(a) The gravity
of the loss, damage or injury caused or attempted during, or as part of, the
conduct that is the basis for jurisdiction under ORS 419C.005;
(b) Whether the
manner in which the adjudicated youth engaged in the conduct was aggressive,
violent, premeditated or willful;
(c) Whether the
adjudicated youth was held in detention under ORS 419C.145 and, if so, the
reasons for the detention;
(d) The immediate
and future protection required by the victim, the victim’s family and the
community; and
(e) The
adjudicated youth’s juvenile court record and response to the requirements and
conditions imposed by previous juvenile court orders.
(4) In addition
to the factors listed in subsection (3) of this section, the court may consider
the following:
(a) Whether the
adjudicated youth has made any efforts toward reform or rehabilitation or
making restitution;
(b) The
adjudicated youth’s educational status and school attendance record;
(c) The
adjudicated youth’s past and present employment;
(d) The
disposition proposed by the adjudicated youth;
(e) The
recommendations of the district attorney and the juvenile court counselor and
the statements of the victim and the victim’s family;
(f) The
adjudicated youth’s mental, emotional and physical health and the results of
the mental health or substance abuse treatment; and
(g) Any other
relevant factors or circumstances raised by the parties.
(5) The court’s
consideration of matters under this section may be addressed on appeal only if
raised by a party at a dispositional hearing or by a motion to modify or set
aside under ORS 419C.610.
(6) When a youth
is found responsible except for insanity, the court shall order a disposition
under ORS 419C.529 if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that,
at the time of disposition, the youth:
(a) Has a serious
mental condition; or
(b) Has a
qualifying mental disorder other than a serious mental condition and presents a
substantial danger to others.
(7) When a youth
is found responsible except for insanity and the court does not make a finding
described in subsection (6) of this section, the court may:
(a) Enter an
order finding the youth to be within the court’s jurisdiction under ORS
419B.100 and make any disposition authorized by ORS chapter 419B;
(b) Initiate
civil commitment proceedings; or
(c) Enter an
order of discharge. [1993 c.33 §226; 1995 c.422 §80; 2003 c.396 §105; 2005
c.843 §10; 2017 c.634 §21; 2021 c.489 §67]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case:
State v. T. J. L., 564 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. T. J. L., 564 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 12× “Reference to ORS 419C.411 on Page 486. Youth first takes issue with our reference to ORS 419C.”
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 6× “ORS 419C.411. The disposition order sets forth the require- ments and conditions that the youth must complete as part of youth’s rehabilitation.”
State v. T. J. L., 558 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 6× “ORS 419C.411. The disposition, like the one in this case, may include a commitment to OYA custody.”
State v. N. K. H., 341 Or. App. 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “With respect to the relationship between the ORS 419C.411 fac- tors and the ORS 419C.478 best-interest determination, we have explained that, “[l]ogically, the factors that drive the best-interest determination must be some subset of the fac- tors that drive the disposition…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 7× “The state responds that youth failed to raise below any issue relating to the court’s factual findings and that, under ORS 419C.411, he therefore cannot raise that issue on appeal.”
State v. M. B., 341 Or. App. 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Under ORS 419C.411, a court is required to consider several factors “in determining the disposition of [a] case.”
State v. B. Y., 510 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “That structure suggests that a juvenile court, in determining the appropriate disposition for a youth who has been adjudicated delinquent for multiple acts, has discre- tion to determine the appropriate length of the commitment period in view of the factors identified in ORS…”
State v. M. A. S., 462 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 3× “400(5) (‘An adjudication by a juvenile court that a youth is within its jurisdiction is not a conviction of a crime or offense.’). The second is the juvenile court’s deter- mination of the proper consequences that should follow from the adjudication.”
State v. S.-Q. K. (In re S.-Q. K.), 426 P.3d 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“610 (governing proceedings in which a juvenile court finds a violation of a probation); ORS 419C.411 (identifying the juvenile court's authority to craft an appropriate disposition).”
State v. Godines, 236 P.3d 824 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “400 (1993); 11 ORS 419C.411 *416 (1993), 12 or, in certain circumstances, the juvenile court could waive the person to the appropriate adult criminal court, see ORS 419C.”
State v. J. C. N.-V., 380 P.3d 248 (Or. 2016).
“” ORS 419C.411(2). That provision was not a part of the juvenile code when ORS 4190.”
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011).
“See ORS 419C.411 (setting out contents of disposition order); ORS 419C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(1) — 2 cases
State v. M. A. S., 462 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“400(5) (‘An adjudication by a juvenile court that a youth is within its jurisdiction is not a conviction of a crime or offense.’). The second is the juvenile court’s deter- mination of the proper consequences that should follow from the adjudication.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(2) — 5 cases
State v. J. C. N.-V., 380 P.3d 248 (Or. 2016).
“” ORS 419C.411(2). That provision was not a part of the juvenile code when ORS 4190.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“The state responds that youth failed to raise below any issue relating to the court’s factual findings and that, under ORS 419C.411, he therefore cannot raise that issue on appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(3) — 20 cases
State v. T. J. L., 558 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 419C.411. The disposition, like the one in this case, may include a commitment to OYA custody.”
State v. N. K. H., 341 Or. App. 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“With respect to the relationship between the ORS 419C.411 fac- tors and the ORS 419C.478 best-interest determination, we have explained that, “[l]ogically, the factors that drive the best-interest determination must be some subset of the fac- tors that drive the disposition…”
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
“ORS 419C.411. The disposition order sets forth the require- ments and conditions that the youth must complete as part of youth’s rehabilitation.”
State v. M. B., 341 Or. App. 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Under ORS 419C.411, a court is required to consider several factors “in determining the disposition of [a] case.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“The state responds that youth failed to raise below any issue relating to the court’s factual findings and that, under ORS 419C.411, he therefore cannot raise that issue on appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(3)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(3)(b) — 2 cases
State v. M. B., 341 Or. App. 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Under ORS 419C.411, a court is required to consider several factors “in determining the disposition of [a] case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(3)(d) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(3)(e) — 3 cases
State v. N. K. H., 341 Or. App. 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“With respect to the relationship between the ORS 419C.411 fac- tors and the ORS 419C.478 best-interest determination, we have explained that, “[l]ogically, the factors that drive the best-interest determination must be some subset of the fac- tors that drive the disposition…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(3)(g) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“The state responds that youth failed to raise below any issue relating to the court’s factual findings and that, under ORS 419C.411, he therefore cannot raise that issue on appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(4) — 8 cases
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
“ORS 419C.411. The disposition order sets forth the require- ments and conditions that the youth must complete as part of youth’s rehabilitation.”
State v. T. J. L., 558 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 419C.411. The disposition, like the one in this case, may include a commitment to OYA custody.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(4)(a) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(4)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(4)(f) — 4 cases
State v. N. K. H., 341 Or. App. 78 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“With respect to the relationship between the ORS 419C.411 fac- tors and the ORS 419C.478 best-interest determination, we have explained that, “[l]ogically, the factors that drive the best-interest determination must be some subset of the fac- tors that drive the disposition…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.411(7)(a) — 2 cases
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.