ORS 419C.005¹

(1) The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and who has committed an act that is a violation, or that if done by an adult would constitute a violation, of a law or ordinance of the United States or a state, county or city.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section do not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from entertaining a civil action or suit involving a youth.

(3) The court does not have jurisdiction as provided in subsection (1) of this section after a minor has been emancipated pursuant to ORS 419B.550 (Definitions for ORS 419B.550 to 419B.558) to 419B.558 (Entry of judgment of emancipation).

(4) The court’s jurisdiction over a person under this section or ORS 419C.067 (Case transferred to juvenile court after verdict in criminal court) continues until one of the following occurs:

(a) The court dismisses a petition filed under this chapter or waives the case under ORS 419C.340 (Authority to waive youth to adult court). If jurisdiction is based on a previous adjudication, then dismissal or waiver of a later case does not terminate jurisdiction under the previous case unless the court so orders.

(b) The court transfers jurisdiction of the case as provided in ORS 419C.053 (Transfer to court of county of youth’s residence), 419C.056 (Transfer of jurisdiction by court in county of youth’s residence) and 419C.059 (Facilitation of disposition).

(c) The court enters an order terminating jurisdiction.

(d) The person becomes 25 years of age.

(e) The court places the person under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board as provided in ORS 419C.529 (Finding of serious mental condition). If the court also has jurisdiction over the person based on a previous adjudication under this chapter or ORS chapter 419B, placing a person under the jurisdiction of the board in a later case does not terminate wardship under the previous case unless the court so orders. [1993 c.33 §149; 1995 c.422 §73; 2003 c.396 §98; 2005 c.843 §7; 2019 c.634 §14]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

Jurisdic­tion depends on the defendant’s age at the time judicial pro­ceed­ings are initiated, not at the time of the alleged of­fense. State v. Watchman, 20 Or App 709, 533 P2d 361 (1975), Sup Ct review denied. But see 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

Where young age of juvenile prevents place­ment in correc­tional facility, state need not prove crim­i­nal charge beyond reasonable doubt. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. K., 26 Or App 451, 554 P2d 180 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

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)

A juvenile court retains jurisdic­tion until the juvenile reaches the age of 21 only over the same matter which caused the juvenile to be initially made a ward of the court. State v. Porter, 29 Or App 67, 562 P2d 566 (1977)

Absent evidence of prejudice to his de­fense, defendant was not denied due process by fact that juvenile pro­ceed­ings against him were terminated immediately before his 18th birthday so that complaint could be brought against him as an adult. State v. Richmond, 31 Or App 553, 570 P2d 1014 (1977). But see 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

Juvenile court jurisdic­tion on basis of of­fense committed in other state does not contravene Art. I, sect. 20 of Oregon Constitu­tion or Equal Protec­tion Clause of Fourteenth Amend­ment. State ex rel Juvenile Depart­ment v. W., 34 Or App 437, 578 P2d 824 (1978)

Exclusive jurisdic­tion of juvenile court over per­sons under 18 does not vest jurisdic­tion in juvenile court of contempt pro­ceed­ings arising out of juvenile’s refusal to testify before grand jury. State v. Tripp, 36 Or App 141, 583 P2d 591 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where juvenile court properly obtained jurisdic­tion over defendant, state could not circumvent juvenile court by indicting defendant in circuit court after its remand mo­tions had been denied. State v. Thornton, 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

Where district attorney delayed pros­e­cu­­tion of a juvenile offender until he reached 18 in order to avoid a remand pro­ceed­ing, the offender could initially be prosecuted only in juvenile court. State v. Scurlock, 286 Or 277, 593 P2d 1159 (1979)

Juvenile court does not have jurisdic­tion over juvenile pro­ceed­ing to which Warm Springs Indian is a party or over substantive crimes which are alleged acts of juvenile de­lin­quen­cy committed on Warm Springs Reserva­tion. United States v. E.K., 471 F Supp 924 (1979)

Deten­tion of juvenile pending adjudica­tion of merits of case constitutes seizure which requires showing of probable cause under U.S and Oregon Constitu­tions; prompt judicial determina­tion of probable cause is prerequisite to extended deten­tion of juvenile pending adjudica­tion, and determina­tion that there was “reason to believe” child committed alleged acts was insufficient to satisfy probable cause require­ment. Roberts v. Mills, 290 Or 441, 622 P2d 1094 (1981)

Where appellant was under 18 and had not otherwise complied with the statutory emancipa­tion pro­ce­dures, juvenile court did not lack jurisdic­tion over her solely because she was married. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 55 Or App 951, 640 P2d 675 (1982)

Absent remand from juvenile court, circuit court did not have jurisdic­tion to accept guilty plea of defendant who was not yet 18 when taken into custody and indicted. Delaney v. State of Oregon, 58 Or App 442, 648 P2d 1302 (1982)

Defense of incapacity due to immaturity set forth in ORS 161.290 (Incapacity due to immaturity) is not applicable in juvenile pro­ceed­ing. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wicks, 97 Or App 390, 776 P2d 582 (1989)

Jurisdic­tional phase of juvenile de­lin­quen­cy pro­ceed­ing is not crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing; therefore no right to jury trial exists. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Reynolds, 317 Or 560, 857 P2d 842 (1993)

In General

Juvenile court has jurisdic­tion to make post-adjudica­tion dismissal of de­lin­quen­cy peti­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Dreyer, 328 Or 332, 976 P2d 1123 (1999)

Conduct of juvenile may be crim­i­nal viola­tion notwithstanding that juvenile is not subjected to crim­i­nal responsibility for viola­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Fitch, 192 Or App 56, 84 P3d 190 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

1995 amend­ments extending period of juvenile court control over youth offenders do not apply to youth com­mit­ting delinquent act prior to effective date of amend­ments. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Nicholls, 192 Or App 604, 87 P3d 680 (2004)

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/­ors419C.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 419C, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano419C.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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