State v. A.R.H.

Under ORS 163A.030, “[t]he person who is the subject of the hearing has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public.”

Defendant appealed after the lower court held that he must register on the sex offender registry despite completing a sex offender treatment program. Defendant assigned error to the court’s finding that he was still a threat to the safety of the public and that he had not shown that he was rehabilitated. Defendant argued that the lower court relied too heavily on his pre-adjudication behavior and that his post-conviction factors, including the completion of a sex offender treatment program, should have been given greater weight. In response, the State argued that the statute does not require the court to weigh post-conviction factors more heavily. Under ORS 163A.030, “[t]he person who is the subject of the hearing has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public.” The Court reasoned that the statute’s enumerated factors were not exhaustive and neither the statute nor the legislative history require courts to weigh post-conviction factors like treatment completion more heavily than other factors. Accordingly, the Court found that the lower court permissibly found that Defendant had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that he was rehabilitated. Affirmed.