2015 ORS 163.135¹
Extreme emotional disturbance as affirmative defense to murder
  • notice of expert testimony
  • right of state to psychiatric or psychological examination

(1) It is an affirmative defense to murder for purposes of ORS 163.115 (Murder) (1)(a) that the homicide was committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance if the disturbance is not the result of the person’s own intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally negligent act and if there is a reasonable explanation for the disturbance. The reasonableness of the explanation for the disturbance must be determined from the standpoint of an ordinary person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances that the actor reasonably believed them to be. Extreme emotional disturbance does not constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime.

(2) The defendant may not introduce in the defendant’s case in chief expert testimony regarding extreme emotional disturbance under this section unless the defendant gives notice of the defendant’s intent to do so.

(3) The notice required must be in writing and must be filed at the time the defendant pleads not guilty. The defendant may file the notice at any time after the defendant pleads but before trial if the court determines that there was just cause for failure to file the notice at the time of the defendant’s plea.

(4) If the defendant fails to file notice, the defendant may not introduce evidence for the purpose of proving extreme emotional disturbance under ORS 163.115 (Murder) unless the court, in its discretion, determines that there was just cause for failure to file notice.

(5) After the defendant files notice as provided in this section, the state may have at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist of its selection examine the defendant in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as provided in ORS 161.315 (Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant). [1971 c.743 §90; 1977 c.235 §1; 1981 c.873 §7; 2003 c.127 §1]

Notes of Decisions

The state's right to make a psychiatric examina­tion of the defendant can be exercised during the trial. State v. Akridge, 23 Or App 633, 543 P2d 1073 (1975)

In determining whether defendant has acted under influence of extreme emo­­tion­al dis­tur­bance, per­sonality characteristics or traits are not relevant. State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 686 P2d 1001 (1984); State v. Wille, 317 Or 487, 858 P2d 128 (1993)

Affirmative de­fense under this pro­vi­sion and af­firm­a­tive de­fense of mental disease or defect under ORS 161.295 (Effect of mental disease or defect) are not mutually exclusive. State v. Counts, 311 Or 616, 816 P2d 1157 (1991)

Extreme emo­­tion­al dis­tur­bance is not de­fense to ag­gra­vat­ed felony mur­der. State v. Wille, 317 Or 487, 858 P2d 128 (1993)

Defense of extreme emo­­tion­al distress is unavailable for

Charge of Attempted Murder. Kibble V. Baldwin, 135 or App 540, 899

P2d 731 (1995)

Once notice of intent to rely on de­fense is given, state has unequivocal right to con­duct multiple psychiatric examina­tions of defendant. State v. Moore, 324 Or 396, 927 P2d 1073 (1996)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 459-493 (1972)

Chapter 163

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 163—Offenses Against Persons, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors163.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 163, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano163.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.