(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the criminality of conduct depends on a childs being under the age of 16, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the childs age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16. (2) When criminality depends on the childs being under a specified age other than 16, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be above the specified age at the time of the alleged offense. (3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the victims lack of consent is based solely upon the incapacity of the victim to consent because the victim is mentally incapacitated, physically helpless or incapable of appraising the nature of the victims conduct, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for the victims incapacity to consent. (4) In any prosecution under ORS 163.415 or 163.425 in which the victims lack of consent is not based on the incapacity of the victim to consent because of the victims age, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that, at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant reasonably believed that the victim consented to the sexual contact, sexual intercourse or oral or anal intercourse.
‹ Prev All Oregon sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.