Source: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.315
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 15:30:36
Document Index: 146558769

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 161', '§42', '§3', '§5', '§101', '§10']

ORS 161.315 - Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
2011 ORS § 161.315¹
Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant
Upon filing of notice or the introduction of evidence by the defendant as provided in ORS 161.309 (Notice and report prerequisite to defense), the state shall have the right to have at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist of its selection examine the defendant. The state shall file notice with the court of its intention to have the defendant examined. Upon filing of the notice, the court, in its discretion, may order the defendant committed to a state institution or any other suitable facility, if the defendant is 18 years of age or older, for observation and examination as the court may designate for a period not to exceed 30 days. If the defendant is under 18 years of age, upon filing of the notice, the court, in its discretion, may order the defendant committed to a secure intensive community inpatient facility designated by the Oregon Health Authority for observation and examination as the court may designate for a period not to exceed 30 days. If the defendant objects to the examiner chosen by the state, the court for good cause shown may direct the state to select a different examiner. [1971 c.743 §42; 1977 c.380 §3; 2007 c.14 §5; 2009 c.595 §101; 2011 c.724 §10]
This sec­tion is basically a codifica­tion of the holding in State v. Phillips, 245 Or 466, 422 P2d 670 (1967), and it gives the defendant the right to object to the psychiatrist chosen by the state. State v. Corbin, 15 Or App 536, 516 P2d 1314 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
A psychiatrist examining the defendant for the state is an of­fi­cer of the state when ques­tioning defendant. State v. Corbin, 15 Or App 536, 516 P2d 1314 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
A defendant may waive his Fifth Amend­ment privilege against self-incrimina­tion and con­sent to a psychiatric examina­tion. State v. Corbin, 15 Or App 536, 516 P2d 1314 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
A valid con­sent to a psychiatric examina­tion may not be obtained unless the defendant has been given a Miranda warning to the effect that his rights apply to the psychiatric examina­tion and unless the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights enumerated in Miranda. State v. Corbin, 15 Or App 536, 516 P2d 1314 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
The defendant should be re­quired to answer ques­tions not pertaining to the com­mis­sion of the crime and if the defendant continues to refuse, the af­firm­a­tive de­fense of mental defect will be stricken. State ex rel Johnson v. Richardson, 276 Or 325, 555 P2d 202 (1976)
Order issued pursuant to this sec­tion, requiring defendant to submit to psychiatric examina­tion, was modified to strike pro­vi­sion which di­rected defendants counsel not to advise defendant to not answer any ques­tion which did not come within specific limita­tions, but order was not re­quired to provide pro­ce­dures for immediate rulings on objec­tions to ques­tions asked during examina­tion. State ex rel Ott v. Cushing, 289 Or 705, 617 P2d 610 (1980)
Once notice of intent to rely on de­fense is given, state has unequivocal right to con­duct multiple psychiatric examina­tions of defendant. State v. Moore, 324 Or 396, 927 P2d 1073 (1996); State v. Fulmer, 229 Or App 386, 211 P3d 942 (2009), Sup Ct review denied
181.740 Certain in­for­ma­­tion re­quired from agencies
278.315 Liability insurance for county or private community care providers
419C.532 Hearings of juvenile panel of Psychiatric Security Review Board
810.375 Duties of judges or court clerks