2017 ORS 161.035¹
Application of Criminal Code

(1) Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and committed after January 1, 1972, as well as the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense.

(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context requires otherwise, the provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined outside chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and committed after January 1, 1972, as well as the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense.

(3) Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall not apply to or govern the construction of and punishment for any offense committed before January 1, 1972, or the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense. Such an offense shall be construed and punished according to the law existing at the time of the commission of the offense in the same manner as if chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, had not been enacted.

(4) When all or part of a criminal statute is amended or repealed, the criminal statute or part thereof so amended or repealed remains in force for the purpose of authorizing the accusation, prosecution, conviction and punishment of a person who violated the statute or part thereof before the effective date of the amending or repealing Act. [1971 c.743 §5]

Note: See note under 161.015 (General definitions).

Notes of Decisions

Absent express direc­tion or contextual require­ment to the contrary, defendants bear burden of proof with respect to all af­firm­a­tive de­fenses, including those created after 1971. State v. Haley, 64 Or App 209, 667 P2d 560 (1983)

It is clear legislature intends that Oregon courts sen­tence crim­i­nal defendants under statutory scheme in force when particular crim­i­nal act was committed. State v. Isom, 313 Or 391, 837 P2d 491 (1992). But see State v. McDonnell, 329 Or 375, 987 P2d 486 (1999)

Subject to constitu­tional restric­tions, legislature may specify ap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty of post-of­fense amend­ment to statutory sen­tence. State v. McDonnell, 329 Or 375, 987 P2d 486 (1999)

Laws governing parole and post-prison supervision are part of crim­i­nal sen­ten­cing scheme under which offender is sen­tenced and remain in force with regard to offender unless legislature indicates contrary intent. Day v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 184 Or App 409, 56 P3d 495 (2002)

Chapter 161

Notes of Decisions

A juvenile court adjudica­tion of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a crim­i­nal viola­tion if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudica­tion of all af­firm­a­tive de­fenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same crim­i­nal viola­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L.J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)

Law Review Cita­tions

2 EL 237 (1971); 51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Chapter 161

Criminal Code

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

Legislature’s adop­tion of 1971 Criminal Code did not abolish doctrine of transferred intent. State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 295 P3d 1147 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 161—General Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors161.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 161, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano161.­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.