State v. Ryan

Defendant appealed his sentence of 75 months following a conviction of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the court not taking into account “intellectual disability in a broad sense when determining proportionality,” and that the sentence was disproportionate under the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution. Defendant argued that in assessing proportionality of the sentence, any intellectual disability should have broad consideration because it should reduce Defendant’s culpability when determining the penalty. The State contends that the trial court took into account all relative factors such as IQ score, competency to stand trial, adaptive function, and prior offenses so the sentence is properly imposed. “[S]erious intellectual disability that has been determined requires evaluation of defendant’s relative culpability as part of the gravity of the offense in determining proportionality.” See Or Cont, Art I, sec 16. The Court found that the trial court failed to assess the impact that intellectual disability has on criminal culpability. Furthermore, the Court concluded that a determined serious intellectual disability requires evaluation of the defendant’s culpability relative to the offense's gravity when determining proportionality. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.