(1) In any prosecution under ORS § 163.355 to 163.445 in which the criminality of conduct depends on a child’s being under the age of 16, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16.

Ask a criminal law question, get an answer ASAP!
Click here to chat with a criminal defense lawyer and protect your rights.

(2) When criminality depends on the child’s 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 victim’s 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 victim’s 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 victim’s incapacity to consent.

(4) In any prosecution under ORS § 163.415 or 163.425 in which the victim’s lack of consent is not based on the incapacity of the victim to consent because of the victim’s 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. [1971 c.743 § 106; 2021 c.82 § 3; 2021 c.410 § 1]

[Repealed by 1971 c.743 § 432]

[1971 c.743 § 107; repealed by 1977 c.844 § 2]

[Repealed by 1971 c.743 § 432]