dating direct aol co uk au nt mat - Telephone sex chat recording online

(2) Expenses incurred by a lawful custodial parent or a parent enforcing a valid joint custody order in locating and regaining physical custody of the person taken, enticed or kept in violation of this section are “economic damages” for purposes of restitution under ORS 137.103 to 137.109. As used in ORS 163.263 and 163.264, “services” means activities performed by one person under the supervision or for the benefit of another person.

[2007 c.811 §1] 163.261 to 163.269 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163 or any series therein by legislative action.

(1) A person commits the crime of custodial interference in the second degree if, knowing or having reason to know that the person has no legal right to do so, the person takes, entices or keeps another person from the other person’s lawful custodian or in violation of a valid joint custody order with intent to hold the other person permanently or for a protracted period.

Telephone sex chat recording online-10Telephone sex chat recording online-27

Telephone sex chat recording online cydia not updating apps

[1971 c.743 §104; 1975 c.461 §1; 1977 c.844 §1; 1979 c.744 §7; 1983 c.500 §1; 1999 c.949 §1; 2009 c.770 §1] Legislative Counsel has substituted “chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971,” for the words “this Act” in section 104, chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, compiled as 163.305.

Specific ORS references have not been substituted, pursuant to 173.160.

[1971 c.743 §106] 163.345 Age as a defense in certain cases.

(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355, 163.365, 163.385, 163.395, 163.415, 163.425, 163.427 or 163.435 in which the victim’s lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense.

(2) When criminality depends on the child’s being under a specified age other than 16, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be above the specified age at the time of the alleged offense.

(3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the victim’s lack of consent is based solely upon the incapacity of the victim to consent because the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for the victim’s incapacity to consent.

[1971 c.743 §105; 1999 c.949 §2; 2001 c.104 §52] 163.325 Ignorance or mistake as a defense.

(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the criminality of conduct depends on a child’s being under the age of 16, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16.

[1971 c.743 §108; 1991 c.386 §3; 1991 c.830 §4; 1999 c.626 §24; amendments by 1999 c.626 §45 repealed by 2001 c.884 §1] 163.385 Sodomy in the third degree.

Tags: , ,