On June 22, 2017, in State v. Ryan, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed a trial court's application of the mandatory minimum sentence to an offender with an intellectual disability, holding that the trial court erred in failing to consider the relevance of the offender's intellectual disability in determining both the gravity of the offense and the severity of its penalty.

The Court explained that, among other factual considerations, a sentencing court should consider an offender’s level of understanding of the nature and consequences of his or her conduct and ability to conform his or her behavior to the law. The Court therefore held that a sentencing court is required to consider an offender's intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sentence on such an offender.

In Oregon, the minimum age for establishing criminal responsibility of a child is 12 years old. The offender in this case had an IQ of 50 and a mental capacity of a child who is 10 years old. Despite those facts, the sentencing court had failed to consider the offender's intellectual disability in applying the minimum mandatory sentence under Measure 11. The Oregon Supreme Court therefore remanded to the sentencing court for resentencing and proper consideration of the offender's intellectual disability in the first instance.

See the full opinion here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S063857.pdf