Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sexual Abuse Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would broaden family definitions and raise felony threshold for strangulation of older children
Summary
House Bill 2474 would modernize statutory family-language so prosecutors can charge more family-based sexual-abuse offenses consistently and would raise the age at which strangulation of a child is a felony from under 10 to under 14. Prosecutors framed the changes as correcting disparities; defenders warned of broad wording and juvenile impacts.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 2474, which seeks two main changes: modernize family-relationship language in sexual-abuse statutes so prosecutors can treat nonmarried intimate partners and other caregivers consistently; and raise the age threshold at which strangulation of a child is a class C felony from under 10 to under 14.
Scott Healy, first assistant district attorney in Clackamas County, testified for the Oregon District Attorneys Association and described cases where antiquated wording caused materially different outcomes. He said current statutes can produce a presumptive 100-month Measure 11 outcome if the perpetrator was the victim's spouse, but a much lower sentencing grid if the offender occupied a parental or caregiving role without a formal legal relationship. Healy said the bill's updated language (including references to biological or adopted child and intimate partners) would better match modern family structures and protect victims.
Healy also said raising the felony threshold for strangulation to under 14 aligns the statute with other child-protection provisions and captures middle-school-aged victims who remain particularly vulnerable.
Maylee Browning of the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association noted concerns about undefined terms such as "former intimate partner" and warned the change to felony-level strangulation for 14-year-olds could sweep more young people into adult sentencing grids or prison. Browning pointed the committee to testimony from Youth Rights & Justice describing potential disproportionate impacts on juveniles.
Representative Mannix urged caution about changes to Measure 11-related statutes, reminding sponsors that altering Measure 11 coverage could prompt litigation and unintended consequences; he recommended considering a separate offense if the intent is not to alter Measure 11's scope.
The committee closed the public hearing and asked stakeholders to continue work on technical definitions and juvenile-impact concerns; no committee votes were recorded at the hearing.
