which the trial court may consider the individual circumstances of a particular defendant. In making that concession, the state did not identify any particular source of law for its view, but we think that the source of law is (as the trial court held) Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. The injunction that “excessive bail shall not be required” necessarily presupposes a factual inquiry into the issue of “excessiveness.” Only a hearing could provide that factual inquiry. We hold that any defendant who wishes to make an “as applied” challenge to the propriety of imposing the specified security release amount of $50,000 or higher under ORS 135.240(5) has a constitutional right to a hearing to address that question. See Delaney v. Shobe, 218 Or 626, 628, 346 P2d 126 (1959) (<HOLDING>). It follows from the foregoing that, as the
holding that the purpose of the credit statute is to provide credit for confinement    where 1 bail has been set for the defendant and 2 the defendant was financially unable to post the bail holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence recognizing that the defendant bears the burden of establishing that plain error was prejudicial holding under excessive bail provision of article i section 16 of oregon constitution criminal defendant bears burden of establishing at hearing that amount of bail imposed is excessive holding defendant bears burden of establishing affirmative defense of official immunity