State v. Clark, 2026 Ore. App. LEXIS 356 (Or. Ct. App. 2026)

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a trial court must consider mental health attributes at sentencing pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and the Oregon state constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court stated in relevant part: “We agree with defendant that ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300 provide that objective societal standard. Through those statutes, the legislature has shown its intent to permit a defendant who suffers from a qualifying mental disorder to show that they are less criminally culpable. Whether or not a person chooses to invoke those statutes for purposes of establishing guilt except for insanity, we conclude that ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300 provide a societal standard that recognizes that a person who suffers from a qualifying mental disorder may be less morally culpable. We note that the record includes evidence that defendant has severe mental illness, more severe than the mental illness suffered by the defendant in Gonzalez, with multiple diagnoses. The record also includes evidence that, as a result of her mental illness, defendant was “substantially unable to conform or control her conduct to the requirements of law.” That evidence, along with undisputed evidence that defendant suffers from a qualifying mental disorder under ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300, lawfully has bearing on the court’s consideration of proportionality.”