2007 ORS 161.351¹
Discharge of person under jurisdiction of board
  • periodic review of status

(1) Any person placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board pursuant to ORS 161.336 (Conditional release by Psychiatric Security Review Board) or 161.341 (Order of commitment) shall be discharged at such time as the board, upon a hearing, shall find by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is no longer affected by mental disease or defect or, if so affected, no longer presents a substantial danger to others which requires regular medical care, medication, supervision or treatment.

(2) For purposes of this section, a person affected by a mental disease or defect in a state of remission is considered to have a mental disease or defect. A person whose mental disease or defect may, with reasonable medical probability, occasionally become active and when it becomes active will render the person a danger to others, shall not be discharged. The person shall continue under such supervision and treatment as the board deems necessary to protect the person and others.

(3) Any person who has been placed under the jurisdiction of the board and who has spent five years on conditional release shall be brought before the board for hearing within 30 days of the expiration of the five-year period. The board shall review the person’s status and determine whether the person should be discharged from the jurisdiction of the board. [1977 c.380 §17 (enacted in lieu of 161.350); 1981 c.711 §13; 1985 c.192 §4; 1989 c.49 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Under former statutory scheme, ORS 161.336 (Conditional release by Psychiatric Security Review Board) (1) and (2) and 161.341 (Order of commitment) (1) governed initial disposi­tional hearing and this sec­tion applied only to sub­se­quent hearings to determine whether per­son continued to be affected by mental disease or defect. Adams v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 290 Or 273, 621 P2d 572 (1980)

Since decision as to dangerousness of individual confined under jurisdic­tion of Psychiatric Security Review Board must be made on basis of evidence in record, where decision was made on basis of non-record opinion in­for­ma­­tion case was remanded for further hearing. Rolfe v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 53 Or App 941, 633 P2d 846 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Transfer of jurisdic­tion from circuit court to PSRB does not violate Article I, sec­tion 21 or Article III, sec­tion 1 of constitu­tion. Perkey v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 65 Or App 259, 670 P2d 1061 (1983)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Psychiatric Security Review Board's max­i­mum period of jurisdic­tion, (1979) Vol 39, p 552

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 44 (1982)

Notes of Decisions

Under former version of these sec­tions, Psychiatric Security Review Board could, at initial disposi­tional hearing, order only commit­ment to mental hospital or condi­tional release, so it had no authority to make independent redetermina­tion of dangerousness of defendant or to order her discharged on basis of such redetermina­tion. Adams v. Psychiatric Security Review Bd., 290 Or 273, 621 P2d 572 (1980)

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 23 (1982)

Law Review Cita­tions

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

Chapter 161

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)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 161—General Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­161.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 161, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­161ano.­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.