Legal Opinion

State v. Francis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 8, 1977No. 76 0205, CA 7293PublishedCited by 10 opinions

petition for review pending

1Opinion of the CourtSchwab, C. J.

Appealing from his conviction for rape, defendant assigns as error the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of partial responsibility and failure to instruct on that issue.

ORS 161.300 provides:

"Evidence that the actor suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether he did or did not have the intent which is an element of the crime.”

The statutes defining rape, ORS 163.355-163.375, do not specify any culpable mental state. "* * * [C]ulpability is nonetheless required and is established only if a person acts intentionally, knowingly,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. BoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. FrancisOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. State v. McVeySupreme Court of Iowa · 1985
  3. State v. HicksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  4. State v. BoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  5. State v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API