2007 ORS 419C.349¹
Grounds for waiving youth to adult court

The juvenile court, after a hearing except as otherwise provided in ORS 419C.364 (Waiver of future cases) or 419C.370 (Waiver of motor vehicle, boating, game, violation and property cases), may waive a youth to a circuit, justice or municipal court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution as an adult if:

(1) The youth is 15 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the alleged offense;

(2) The youth, except as otherwise provided in ORS 419C.364 (Waiver of future cases) and 419C.370 (Waiver of motor vehicle, boating, game, violation and property cases), is alleged to have committed a criminal offense constituting:

(a) Murder under ORS 163.115 (Murder) or any aggravated form thereof;

(b) A Class A or Class B felony;

(c) Any of the following Class C felonies:

(A) Escape in the second degree under ORS 162.155 (Escape in the second degree);

(B) Assault in the third degree under ORS 163.165 (Assault in the third degree);

(C) Coercion under ORS 163.275 (Coercion) (1)(a);

(D) Arson in the second degree under ORS 164.315 (Arson in the second degree); or

(E) Robbery in the third degree under ORS 164.395 (Robbery in the third degree);

(d) Any Class C felony in which the youth used or threatened to use a firearm; or

(e) Any other felony or any misdemeanor if the youth and the state stipulate to the waiver;

(3) The youth at the time of the alleged offense was of sufficient sophistication and maturity to appreciate the nature and quality of the conduct involved; and

(4) The juvenile court, after considering the following criteria, determines by a preponderance of the evidence that retaining jurisdiction will not serve the best interests of the youth and of society and therefore is not justified:

(a) The amenability of the youth to treatment and rehabilitation given the techniques, facilities and personnel for rehabilitation available to the juvenile court and to the criminal court which would have jurisdiction after transfer;

(b) The protection required by the community, given the seriousness of the offense alleged;

(c) The aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner in which the offense was alleged to have been committed;

(d) The previous history of the youth, including:

(A) Prior treatment efforts and out-of-home placements; and

(B) The physical, emotional and mental health of the youth;

(e) The youth’s prior record of acts which would be crimes if committed by an adult;

(f) The gravity of the loss, damage or injury caused or attempted during the offense;

(g) The prosecutive merit of the case against the youth; and

(h) The desirability of disposing of all cases in one trial if there were adult cooffenders. [1993 c.33 §213; 1993 c.546 §78; 1999 c.951 §1; 2003 c.404 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

No particular formalities are re­quired for the hearing. State v. Weidner, 6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971)

The primary issue in the remand hearing is the prognosis for rehabilita­tion of a child if he is found to be in the jurisdic­tion of the court and subject to the rehabilitative programs available to the juvenile court. State v. Weidner, 6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971)

An Oregon juvenile court may waive its jurisdic­tion over an Oregon juvenile who has committed an of­fense in an­oth­er state, but the court does not have the power to transfer jurisdic­tion over the juvenile to a court in an­oth­er state. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Casteel, 18 Or App 70, 523 P2d 1039 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence of underlying of­fense and manner of its com­mis­sion may be relevant to whether child is amenable to rehabilita­tion in juvenile system. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dahl, 37 Or App 839, 588 P2d 132 (1978)

Where juvenile court denied mo­tions to remand defendant, state could not circumvent juvenile court by indicting defendant in circuit court. State v. Thornton, 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

Where district attorney inten­tionally delayed pros­e­cu­­tion of juvenile offender until he was 18 in order to avoid remand, juvenile court retained initial jurisdic­tion over offender. State v. Scurlock, 286 Or 277, 593 P2d 1159 (1979)

Where defendant, Warm Springs Indian, was charged with federal of­fenses over which adult court of Oregon has no jurisdic­tion, he could not be remanded to state court. United States v. E.K., 471 F Supp 924 (1979)

Juvenile court may order psychological or psychiatric evalua­tions for use in making decision to remand child to adult court. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Engeweiler, 114 Or App 575, 836 P2d 157 (1992)

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statute

29 WLR 689 (1993)

In General

75 OLR 1223 (1996)

Chapter 419C

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statutes

56 OLR 428 (1977); 16 WLR 417 (1979)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 419C—Juvenile Code: Delinquency, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­419c.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 419C, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­419cano.­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.