ORS 163.415¹

Sexual abuse in the third degree

Notes of Decisions

Under this sec­tion, legislative intent is to prohibit sexual abuse of con­senting mi­nors, and all four types of legal incapacity set out in ORS 163.315 (Incapacity to consent) are intended to apply to this sec­tion. State v. Landino, 38 Or App 447, 590 P2d 737 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Language of this sec­tion does not, by itself, make sexual abuse a lesser included of­fense in charge of at­tempted rape in the first de­gree. State v. Sears, 70 Or App 537, 689 P2d 1324 (1984)

Indict­ment for sexual abuse was proper where issue was raised whether defendant touched area that per­son he touched subjectively considered intimate and that defendant knew this or should have recognized area to be one that would objectively be known to be intimate part by any reasonable per­son. State v. Woodley, 306 Or 458, 760 P2d 884 (1988)

Where complaint alleged that defendant touched victim’s buttocks, facts could constitute sexual abuse in sec­ond de­gree. State v. Williams, 96 Or App 543, 773 P2d 25 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant did not demonstrate to trial court how evidence would support con­vic­­tion for sexual abuse in sec­ond de­gree but not for rape, trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury on lesser of­fense. State v. Abraham, 102 Or App 369, 794 P2d 809 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Proof of incapacity to con­sent for purposes of greater of­fense of sexual abuse in first de­gree (ORS 163.427 (Sexual abuse in the first degree)) also proves ele­ment of lack of con­sent under this sec­tion. State v. Barnes, 209 Or App 332, 147 P3d 936 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

2007 version of statute does not proscribe con­duct by which per­son causes an­oth­er per­son to touch semen or other fluids expelled from actor’s body. State v. Serafin, 241 Or App 239, 249 P3d 160 (2011)

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Stich, 5 Or App 511, 484 P2d 861 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

68 OLR 255 (1989)

Notes of Decisions

Under evidence that defendant inten­tionally touched victim’s buttocks through clothing, whether such con­duct constituted “sexual contact” of victim’s “intimate parts” was ques­tion for jury. State v. Buller, 31 Or App 889, 581 P2d 1263 (1977)

Genitalia and breasts are intimate parts as matter of law under this sec­tion, and undeveloped genitalia and breasts of children are included within defini­tion. State v. Turner, 33 Or App 157, 575 P2d 1007 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Rule that state is not permitted to introduce evidence of other crimes or bad acts solely to prove defendant acted as on prior occasions is strictly applied in sex crime cases, even those involving deviate sexual behavior, in so far as con­duct with per­sons other than victim is concerned. State v. Sicks, 33 Or App 435, 576 P2d 834 (1978)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 428, 518-522, 555 (1972)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)