Bill would let judges consider ongoing domestic abuse as mitigation for sentences, survivors urge relief

Salem, Ore. — March 18, 2025: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard emotional and sharply contested testimony on Senate Bill 11-79, which would require courts to consider evidence that a defendant was subjected to ongoing domestic abuse that contributed to criminal behavior and — if proven by a preponderance of evidence — treat that showing as a substantial and compelling reason supporting a downward sentencing departure, even where a mandatory sentence otherwise applies.

Under the bill’s overview, a sentencing court must consider whether domestic abuse was ongoing when the defendant’s criminal behavior occurred and whether that abuse contributed to the behavior; if established by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would permit a court to impose a lesser sentence and would authorize resentencing petitions for people currently serving sentences. The measure also would create a task force on services and support for incarcerated domestic-violence survivors and requires circuit courts to issue an order granting or denying a resentencing petition within 30 days; the bill’s effective date was described as the 91st day following enactment.

Survivors, public defenders and legal advocates urged the committee to pass SB 11-79 as a modest, necessary reform. Julia Yoshimoto, project director for the Women’s Justice Project at the Oregon Justice Resource Center, said judges should have a clear statutory prompt to consider abuse’s role at sentencing. “This bill is brought on behalf of survivors of domestic violence who have long been overlooked,” Yoshimoto said, describing surveys and decade-long work providing legal services to incarcerated women. Several survivors who served long sentences detailed histories of coercion, trafficking, repeated abuse and long prison terms they say did not account for that context.

Crystal Magania, who said she was incarcerated for 16½ years for a manslaughter conviction and described a history of being forced into prostitution and severe abuse, told senators, “If this bill was around when my crime had happened, things could have looked a lot differently.” Angela Kim, who described multiple abusive relationships and years of incarceration, urged lawmakers to allow judges to account for coercion and control in sentencing decisions.

Public defenders said the bill fills a gap: many survivor-defendants do not meet narrow legal defenses such as duress or self-defense, but their culpability nonetheless warrants mitigation. “11-79 is a modest common sense reform that frees judges to sentence defendants with due consideration for their offenses as well as the surrounding circumstances, specifically domestic violence,” Mallory Maloney, a public defender, told the committee.

Prosecutors opposed the bill, saying existing defenses and sentencing procedures already allow courts to consider coercion and duress and expressing concern the new framework could be manipulated by abusers. Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth said existing defenses — choice of evils and self-defense — provide relief when appropriate, and cautioned that the bill’s presumptive resentencing procedure and broad definitions could be “weaponized” by abusers. Deputy D.A. Brian Powell and others told the committee the bill’s language (including how “domestic abuse” and “contributing factor” are defined) could allow retroactive petitions and repeated litigation that would retraumatize victims and strain prosecutorial and court resources.

Witnesses also pressed the committee on implementation details. The Oregon Judicial Department and prosecutors noted that the resentencing procedure and any increase in hearings would require resources for investigation and victim notification. Supporters said the bill does not mandate relief in every case but provides judges discretion to account for context and recommends statutory clarity to avoid unintended consequences.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 11-79 after more than a dozen witnesses, with senators inviting written follow-up and indicating further deliberations would be required to balance survivor relief, safeguards for victims and administrative feasibility.