Culpability requirement inapplicable to certain violations and offenses
Source:
Section 161.105 — Culpability requirement inapplicable to certain violations and offenses, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html.
Notes of Decisions
Proof of culpable mental state was not required for conviction of defendant for sale of unregistered security pursuant to ORS 59.005, and thus imposition of suspended 5-year prison term and fine of $5,000 exceeded maximum permissible under this section. State v. Pierre, 30 Or App 81, 566 P2d 534 (1977)
Section is not prospective, but is applicable to laws passed prior to January 1, 1972. State v. Pierre, 30 Or App 81, 566 P2d 534 (1977)
Culpable mental state is required as to each material element of charge of being an ex-convict in possession of concealable firearm. State v. Hash, 34 Or App 281, 578 P2d 482 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Negligent wounding of another pursuant to ORS 166.180 is outside Criminal Code but clearly intends proof of culpable mental state. State v. Orth, 35 Or App 235, 581 P2d 953 (1978)
Offense of wrecker failing to have proper evidence of motor vehicle ownership, as defined by [former] ORS 481.360 (2) and [former] ORS 481.990 (1) is not strict liability crime under this section. State v. Eyerly, 37 Or App 399, 587 P2d 1039 (1978)
Whether culpable mental state is implicit in offense may be determined from nature of proscribed conduct and resulting penalty. State v. Wolfe, 288 Or 521, 605 P2d 1185 (1980); State v. Baker, 48 Or App 999, 618 P2d 997 (1980)
Where defendant was found guilty of Hit and Run, a traffic violation, and had been convicted within five years of DUII, trial court had authority to impose jail sentence for misdemeanor under [former] ORS 484.365; existence of prior conviction, not culpable mental state, raises offense to misdemeanor. State v. Plummer, 53 Or App 240, 631 P2d 819 (1981)
When a statute clearly indicates neither an intent to dispense with culpable mental state nor clearly indicates an intent to create strict liability crime, offense under such statute is a “violation” which, in prosecutor’s discretion, can be upgraded to misdemeanor by pleading and proving culpable mental state. McNutt v. State, 295 Or 580, 668 P2d 1201 (1983)
Being under influence of intoxicant is strict liability element of driving under the influence of intoxicants and no proof is required of culpable mental state. State v. Miller, 309 Or 362, 788 P2d 974 (1990)
In determining whether element of controlled substance statute (ORS 475.904) required culpable mental state, relevant considerations included legislative intent in enacting statute, grammatical structure of statutory text and nature of element in question. State v. Rutley, 343 Or 368, 171 P3d 361 (2007)
Factors for determining whether element of offense requires culpable mental state are: (1) text of the statute that defines offense; (2) whether nature of element pertains to defendant’s conduct; (3) legislative history of statute that defines offense; and (4) whether requiring culpable mental state for particular element would frustrate purpose of statute. State v. Rainoldi, 351 Or 486, 268 P3d 568 (2011)
Unlawful possession of methamphetamine pursuant to ORS 475.894 is outside Criminal Code; however, because that statute requires that person must act with knowledge or intent as to possession of methamphetamine, which is only conduct that statute addresses, statute does not clearly indicate legislative intent to dispense with mental state requirement as it pertains to possession of prohibited substance. State v. Harper, 296 Or App 125, 436 P3d 44 (2019)
Law Review Citations
13 WLJ 372 (1977)
Up to date