426.675
Determination of sexually dangerous persons; custody pending sentencing;
hearing; sentencing; rules.
(1) When a defendant has been convicted of a sexual offense under ORS 163.305
to 163.467 or 163.525 and there is probable cause to believe the defendant is a
sexually dangerous person, the court prior to imposing sentence may continue
the time for sentencing and commit the defendant to a facility designated under
ORS 426.670 for a period not to exceed 30 days for evaluation and report.
(2) If the
facility reports to the court that the defendant is a sexually dangerous person
and that treatment available may reduce the risk of future sexual offenses, the
court shall hold a hearing to determine by clear and convincing evidence that
the defendant is a sexually dangerous person. The state and the defendant shall
have the right to call and cross-examine witnesses at such hearing. The
defendant may waive the hearing required by this subsection.
(3) If the court
finds that the defendant is a sexually dangerous person and that treatment is
available which will reduce the risk of future sexual offenses, it may, in its
discretion at the time of sentencing:
(a) Sentence the
defendant to probation on the condition that the person participate in and
successfully complete a treatment program for sexually dangerous persons
pursuant to ORS 426.670;
(b) Impose a
sentence of imprisonment with the order that the defendant be assigned by the
Director of the Department of Corrections to participate in a treatment program
for sexually dangerous persons pursuant to ORS 426.670. The Department of
Corrections and the Oregon Health Authority shall jointly adopt administrative
rules to coordinate assignment and treatment of prisoners under this
subsection; or
(c) Impose any
other sentence authorized by law. [1977 c.377 §3; 1979 c.606 §2; 1987 c.320 §231;
1993 c.14 §24; 2009 c.595 §435]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1978–1990 · leading case:
State v. Bateman, 771 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Bateman, 771 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “He stipulated that he met the criteria of ORS 426.675(2) and, as a consequence, the court found him guilty of the two charges and declared that he is a sexually dangerous offender.”
State v. Sanders, 582 P.2d 22 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “725) as well as a sexually dangerous offender (ORS 426.675). The evidence established that the defendant had unlawfully entered the victim’s apartment and attacked her when she returned home.”
State v. Harris, 463 N.W.2d 829 (Neb. 1990).
“It is only after an MDSO defendant has been sentenced that the court may commit him to a regional center for treatment.”
State v. Cunningham, 728 P.2d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “2 Before sentencing, the trial court ordered that defendant be transported to the Oregon State Hospital (OSH) for “examination and evaluation” regarding the issue of sexual dangerousness under ORS 426.675. That was never done. After a hearing before another judge, the court…”
State v. Morse, 580 P.2d 1038 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “The pertinent portions of the record set forth above reveal that both the court and defendant’s counsel were unaware of the existence of ORS 426.675, passed by the 1977 Legislative Assembly, which provides: *11 "When a defendant has been convicted of a sexual offense under ORS…”
State v. Moore, 773 P.2d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 426.675(3)(a). Defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the imposition of that condition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.675(2) — 1 case
State v. Bateman, 771 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“He stipulated that he met the criteria of ORS 426.675(2) and, as a consequence, the court found him guilty of the two charges and declared that he is a sexually dangerous offender.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.675(3) — 1 case
State v. Bateman, 771 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“He stipulated that he met the criteria of ORS 426.675(2) and, as a consequence, the court found him guilty of the two charges and declared that he is a sexually dangerous offender.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.675(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Moore, 773 P.2d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 426.675(3)(a). Defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the imposition of that condition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.675(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Morse, 580 P.2d 1038 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“The pertinent portions of the record set forth above reveal that both the court and defendant’s counsel were unaware of the existence of ORS 426.675, passed by the 1977 Legislative Assembly, which provides: *11 "When a defendant has been convicted of a sexual offense under ORS…”
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.