ORS 135.886¹
Requirements for diversion
  • factors considered

(1) After an accusatory instrument has been filed charging a defendant with commission of a crime other than driving while under the influence of intoxicants as defined in ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants), and after the district attorney has considered the factors listed in subsection (2) of this section, if it appears to the district attorney that diversion of the defendant would be in the interests of justice and of benefit to the defendant and the community, the district attorney may propose a diversion agreement to the defendant the terms of which are established by the district attorney in conformance with ORS 135.891 (Conditions of diversion agreement). A diversion agreement under this section is not available to a defendant charged with the crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicants as defined in ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants).

(2) In determining whether diversion of a defendant is in the interests of justice and of benefit to the defendant and the community, the district attorney shall consider at least the following factors:

(a) The nature of the offense; however, the offense must not have involved injury to another person;

(b) Any special characteristics or difficulties of the offender;

(c) Whether the defendant is a first-time offender; if the offender has previously participated in diversion, according to the certification of the Department of Justice, diversion shall not be offered;

(d) Whether there is a probability that the defendant will cooperate with and benefit from alternative treatment;

(e) Whether the available program is appropriate to the needs of the offender;

(f) The impact of diversion upon the community;

(g) Recommendations, if any, of the involved law enforcement agency;

(h) Recommendations, if any, of the victim;

(i) Provisions for restitution; and

(j) Any mitigating circumstances. [1977 c.373 §2; 1981 c.64 §1; 1981 c.803 §2; 1983 c.338 §889]

Notes of Decisions

Under this sec­tion, district attorney had discre­tion to decide that per­sons charged with Class A felonies would not be diverted. State ex rel Anderson v. Haas, 43 Or App 169, 602 P2d 346 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

When district attorney terminates diversion and the existence of findings on the termina­tion is disputed, the court must provide a pro­ce­dure for determining whether the requisite facts exist. State ex rel Harmon v. Blanding, 292 Or 752, 644 P2d 1082 (1982)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors135.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­135ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
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. Currency Information