Affirmative defenses
Source:
Section 811.180 — Affirmative defenses, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors811.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute
Affirmative defense of failure to receive notice of suspension is not established by law by fact that envelope in which notice was transmitted was stamped “unclaimed.” State v. DeMello, 74 Or App 503, 703 P2d 276 (1985), aff’d 300 Or 590, 716 P2d 732 (1986)
In general
Defendant is not barred by this section from asserting lack of notice defense where failure to deliver notice of suspension of his driver license was not caused by defendant’s failure to notify MVD of his change of address within 30 days. State v. Sickles, 85 Or App 353, 736 P2d 223 (1987)
Evidence of “unclaimed” notation on suspension notice and defendant’s testimony that she neither received notice nor had actual knowledge of suspension was not sufficient to meet burden of proof of defense of lack of notice in prosecution for driving while suspended. State v. Click, 87 Or App 272, 742 P2d 67 (1987), aff’d 305 Or 611, 755 P2d 693 (1988)
Showing that post office failed to deliver notice of driver license suspension by certified letter is part of defendant’s burden in establishing non-notice of suspension. State v. Click, 305 Or 611, 755 P2d 693 (1988)
Affirmative defense to criminal charge may be withdrawn from jury’s consideration only if there is no evidence in record to support element of defense. State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 761 P2d 1300 (1988)
To establish affirmative defense of injury or threat of injury, defendant need only establish, first, that he believed there was injury or threat thereof and believed that circumstances were urgent, and, second, that information available to him would cause reasonable person so to believe. State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 761 P2d 1300 (1988)
Affirmative defense under this section that defendant had not received notice of suspension was not available to defendant who failed to notify MVD of his new address as required by ORS 807.560 where defendant was driving in Oregon and continued to hold his Oregon driver license after moving. State v. Hayes, 99 Or App 387, 782 P2d 177 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date