2017 ORS 161.705¹
Reduction of certain felonies to misdemeanors

Notwithstanding ORS 161.525 (“Felony” described), the court may enter judgment of conviction for a Class A misdemeanor and make disposition accordingly when:

(1)(a) A person is convicted of any Class C felony; or

(b) A person convicted of a felony described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, of possession or delivery of marijuana or a marijuana item as defined in ORS 475B.015 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.545) constituting a Class B felony, or of a Class A felony pursuant to ORS 166.720 (Racketeering activity unlawful), has successfully completed a sentence of probation; and

(2) The court, considering the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history and character of the defendant, believes that it would be unduly harsh to sentence the defendant for a felony. [1971 c.743 §83; 1977 c.745 §31; 1979 c.124 §1; 1981 c.769 §8; 2005 c.708 §48; 2009 c.610 §2; 2013 c.591 §5; 2015 c.290 §2; 2015 c.614 §125; 2017 c.21 §100]

Notes of Decisions

By enacting this sec­tion, the legislature intended to authorize a compromise of all Class C felonies which could be punished “as a misdemeanor.” State v. Dumond, 270 Or 854, 530 P2d 32 (1974)

Imposi­tion of one-year jail term upon con­vic­­tion of crim­i­nal ac­tivity in drugs was within max­i­mum sen­tence authorized for crime, was imposed after defendant had violated proba­tion, and did not shock the conscience. State v. Davis, 31 Or App 439, 570 P2d 683 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant was found guilty of Class C felony, but judg­ment of con­vic­­tion for Class A misdemeanor was entered under this sec­tion, defendant could be impeached under Evidence Code Rule 609 (1), having been convicted of crime punishable in excess of one year. State v. Smith, 298 Or 173, 691 P2d 89 (1984)

§§ 161.705 (Reduction of certain felonies to misdemeanors) to 161.735 (Procedure for determining whether defendant dangerous)

Notes of Decisions

By enacting this sec­tion, the legislature intended to authorize a compromise of all Class C felonies which could be punished “as a misdemeanor.” State v. Dumond, 270 Or 854, 530 P2d 32 (1974)

Imposi­tion of one-year jail term upon con­vic­­tion of crim­i­nal ac­tivity in drugs was within max­i­mum sen­tence authorized for crime, was imposed after defendant had violated proba­tion, and did not shock the conscience. State v. Davis, 31 Or App 439, 570 P2d 683 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

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.