2017 ORS 135.415¹
Criteria to be considered in plea discussions and plea agreements

In determining whether to engage in plea discussions for the purpose of reaching a plea agreement, the district attorney may take into account, but is not limited to, any of the following considerations:

(1) The defendant by the plea of the defendant has aided in insuring the prompt and certain applications of correctional measures to the defendant.

(2) The defendant has acknowledged guilt and shown a willingness to assume responsibility for the conduct of the defendant.

(3) The concessions made by the state will make possible alternative correctional measures which are better adapted to achieving rehabilitative, protective, deterrent or other purposes of correctional treatment, or will prevent undue harm to the defendant from the form of conviction.

(4) The defendant has made public trial unnecessary when there are good reasons for not having the case dealt with in a public trial.

(5) The defendant has given or offered cooperation when the cooperation has resulted or may result in the successful prosecution of other offenders engaged in equally serious or more serious criminal conduct.

(6) The defendant by the plea of the defendant has aided in avoiding delay in the disposition of other cases and thereby has increased the probability of prompt and certain application of correctional measures to other offenders. [1973 c.836 §171]

Notes of Decisions

Where district attorney adhered to standards expressed in this sec­tion, Freeland require­ment that district attorney adhere “to sufficiently consistent standards to represent coherent, systematic policy” was met and defendant has not es­tab­lished predicate for alleged constitu­tional viola­tion. State v. Buchholz, 309 Or 442, 788 P2d 998 (1990)

Where prosecutor improperly allowed victim’s parents’ wishes to control his decision not to enter into plea agree­ment and record did not reveal what prosecutor independently would have decided, case remanded to trial court for evidentiary hearing to determine how prosecutor would have exercised his judg­ment and discre­tion on basis of proper criteria and facts that existed at time he dec­lined to enter into plea agree­ment. State v. McDonnell, 310 Or 98, 794 P2d 780 (1990); 313 Or 478, 837 P2d 941 (1992)

Record reflected ample justifica­tion for prosecutor to treat defendant differently than other individual with whom prosecutor negotiated plea agree­ment, considering defendant’s role in com­mis­sion of mur­ders. State v. Guzek, 310 Or 299, 797 P2d 1031 (1990)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.