Qualifying mental disorder as affirmative defense
Source:
Section 161.305 — Qualifying mental disorder as affirmative defense, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html.
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Evidence of insanity can be so substantial that the matter should be withdrawn from the trier of fact and decided favorably to the defendant by the trial judge as a matter of law.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 or 163.125 (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)
Up to date