2017 ORS 163.690¹
Lack of knowledge of age of child as affirmative defense

It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution under ORS 163.684 (Encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree), 163.686 (Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree), 163.687 (Encouraging child sexual abuse in the third degree) or 163.693 (Failure to report child pornography) that the defendant, at the time of engaging in the conduct prohibited therein, did not know and did not have reason to know that the relevant sexually explicit conduct involved a child. [1985 c.557 §7; 1987 c.864 §13; 1991 c.664 §9; 1995 c.768 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Where district court’s order in child por­nog­ra­phy pros­e­cu­­tion allowed admission of evidence as to defendants’ mis­take of fact concerning age of actress who appeared in film and alleged error not correctable by any other means and also raised issue of first impression whether First Amend­ment re­quired mis­take of age de­fense be available in pros­e­cu­­tion under child por­nog­ra­phy statute, writ of mandamus appropriate. U.S. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 858 F 2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988)

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 163, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano163.­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.