State v. A. R. H.

When determining whether a youth failed to meet the burden of proof under ORS 163A.030, an appellate court must determine whether “no court could find itself unpersuaded that” a youth is rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat to public safety. State v. A. L. M., 305 Or App 389, 404–05, 469 P3d 244, rev den, 367 Or 218 (2020).

Youth had previously been on probation for sexual assault of an animal, and the juvenile court had determined that Youth did not prove, “by clear and convincing evidence, that he” was rehabilitated and did not pose a safety threat to the public. Youth assigned error to the juvenile court's order requiring him “to report as a sex offender pursuant to ORS 163A.025.”  On appeal, Youth argued that the juvenile court erred when it ordered him to register as a sex offender and claimed he was rehabilitated.  In response, the State asserted that the juvenile court correctly found that Youth had not met his burden of proof.  When determining whether a youth failed to meet the burden of proof under ORS 163A.030, an appellate court must determine whether “no court could find itself unpersuaded that” a youth is rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat to public safety.  State v. A. L. M., 305 Or App 389, 404–05, 469 P3d 244, rev den, 367 Or 218 (2020). The Court found that, based on the evidence in the record, “a reasonable juvenile court” could have been unpersuaded that Youth had met the burden of clear and convincing evidence that he was rehabilitated and no longer posed a threat to public safety.  Thus, the Court held that Youth did not meet his burden of proof.  Affirmed.