Main/Solving the Gordian Knot of Attempted Murder EED

A jury finding of extreme emotion disturbance can reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter conviction.  And it recently got harder for the state to defeat.  ''Richards v Brown,'' 345 Or App 321 (2025).

It's a substantial reduction, from a life-25 sentence to 10 years.  

But a perennial complaint of defense lawyers is that EED -- though understood as a partial defense to murder -- is not a defense in any way to attempted murder.  Seems unfair, but that's the law.  Is there anything a defense lawyer can do?

Yes.  Article I, section 16.  There are legal and societal reasons why EED is a substantial mitigating factor.  Consequently, EED almost certainly meets ''Gonzalez'' standard for application of Article I, section 16.  ''State v. Gonzalez,'' 373 Or 248 (2025).  A successful proportionality argument would still result in prison, but a non-Measure 11 sentence.  ''State v. Fudge,'' 333 Or App 149 (2024).

I have developed a strong interest in expanding the scope of Article I, section 16.   For those keeping score at home, here are other times I think you should consider pushing the envelope:

(1)  When the defendant is highly mentally ill but not quite enough to meet a GEI standard.
(2)  When the defendant has significant medical needs.  (Compassionate release only applies to non-M11 sentences in Oregon.)  
(3)  When a lengthy sentence will '''only''' be imposed '''after''' the defendant is found rehabilitated by the parole board.
(4)  When a defendant is convicted of sex abuse II based solely on the victim being 16 or 17, when there is a statute that makes the exact same crime a misdemeanor.
{{wl-publish: 2025-12-23 15:37:22 -0800 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan  Scott  }}