ORS 161.305¹

Disease or defect as affirmative defense

Notes of Decisions

Evidence of insanity can be so substantial that the matter should be withdrawn from the trier of fact and decided favorably to the defendant by the trial judge as a matter of law. State v. Sands, 10 Or App 438, 499 P2d 821 (1972)

Instruc­tion concerning de­fense of mental disease of defect, which had effect of placing burden of proof of entire de­fense on defendant, was erroneous. State v. Umscheid, 31 Or App 1249, 572 P2d 362 (1977)

Instruc­tion on partial responsibility is no longer appropriate. State v. Umscheid, 31 Or App 1249, 572 P2d 362 (1977)

This sec­tion is unconstitu­tional in so far as it places the burden of proving partial responsibility or diminished intent on the defendant. State v. Stockett, 278 Or 637, 565 P2d 739 (1977)

Under evidence of intoxica­tion and extreme emo­­tion­al dis­tur­bance, from which jury could conclude defendant did not possess requisite intent to commit inten­tional mur­der, instruc­tion concerning presump­tion of unlawful intent arising from an unlawful act constituted unconstitu­tional shifting of burden of proof of intent to defendant. State v. Anderson, 33 Or App 43, 575 P2d 677 (1978)

Where defendant, charged with and convicted of mur­der, requested instruc­tion on "partial responsibility" de­fense as to ORS 163.118 (Manslaughter in the first degree) or 163.125 (Manslaughter in the second degree) (manslaughter), proof of intent was not re­quired for con­vic­­tion of lesser included manslaughter of­fenses and requested instruc­tion was properly refused. State v. Armstrong, 38 Or App 219, 589 P2d 1174 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Court is not authorized to impose verdict of guilty except for insanity where insanity is not asserted as af­firm­a­tive de­fense by represented defendant. State v. Peterson, 70 Or App 333, 689 P2d 985 (1984); State v. Bozman, 145 Or App 66, 929 P2d 1019 (1996)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 428 (1972); 52 OLR 285-295 (1973)

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)