2015 ORS 131.505¹
Definitions for ORS 131.505 to 131.525

As used in ORS 131.505 (Definitions for ORS 131.505 to 131.525) to 131.525 (Previous prosecution), unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) Conduct and offense have the meaning provided for those terms in ORS 161.085 (Definitions with respect to culpability) and 161.505 (Offense described).

(2) When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions, each such violation constitutes a separate and distinct offense.

(3) When the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision, results in death, injury, loss or other consequences of two or more victims, and the result is an element of the offense defined, there are as many offenses as there are victims.

(4) Criminal episode means continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.

(5) A person is prosecuted for an offense when the person is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in any court of this state or in any court of any political subdivision of this state, and when the action either:

(a) Terminates in a conviction upon a plea of guilty, except as provided in ORS 131.525 (Previous prosecution) (2);

(b) Proceeds to the trial stage and the jury is impaneled and sworn; or

(c) Proceeds to the trial stage when a judge is the trier of fact and the first witness is sworn.

(6) There is an acquittal if the prosecution results in a finding of not guilty by the trier of fact or in a determination that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. [1973 c.836 §26; 1983 c.509 §1; 2001 c.104 §42]

Notes of Decisions

Defendants mo­tion to dismiss the charge on the basis of double jeopardy after he had been tried and convicted was properly overruled since the double jeopardy clause does not attach at this stage of the pro­ceed­ings. State v. Haycraft, 20 Or App 28, 530 P2d 528 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

If the state must prosecute for only one charge because the defendant has voluntarily and unilaterally entered a plea of guilty on an­oth­er charge, there can be no argu­ment that the state has harassed the defendant. State v. Roach, 271 Or 764, 534 P2d 508 (1975)

Where jury was properly instructed on theft, fact that defendant at one time misplaced or withheld prop­erty from 20 different victims was sufficient to constitute 20 separate theft of­fenses on each of which defendant could be sen­tenced. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant pointed pistol at and obtained money from each of four bank tellers in succession there occurred four separate robbery of­fenses and defendant was properly sen­tenced on each con­vic­­tion. State v. Dellman, 34 Or App 937, 580 P2d 567 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant took victim from one place to an­oth­er for purpose of forcible rape was sufficient to support separate con­vic­­tions for first de­gree kidnapping and rape. State v. Strickland, 36 Or App 119, 584 P2d 310 (1978)

Where one defendant, at same time and place, withholds prop­erty of two or more victims, there are as many of­fenses as there are victims; each indict­ment thus charges separate of­fense and verdict in trial of first indict­ment does not bar pros­e­cu­­tions under other indict­ments. State v. Gilbert, 281 Or 101, 574 P2d 313 (1978)

Ac­tion charging of­fense and terminating in guilty plea was pros­e­cu­­tion for of­fense for double jeopardy purposes. State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813, 618 P2d 1245 (1980)

Where parties stipulated to the facts and defendant was convicted after trial to the court, jeopardy attached between time of fact stipula­tion and con­vic­­tion on lesser included of­fense, so retrial on greater of­fenses was barred by former jeopardy. State v. Adams, 56 Or App 303, 641 P2d 647 (1982)

When trial court has accepted guilty plea, after informing defendant as re­quired by statute and after determining that plea is voluntarily and intelligently made, pros­e­cu­­tion of of­fense has terminated in con­vic­­tion. State v. Taylor, 62 Or App 220, 660 P2d 690 (1983)

Where defendant fired one shot toward group of three per­sons, fact that he may have recklessly endangered everyone in vicinity was incidental to act of shooting one per­son and defendant could be sen­tenced for only one con­vic­­tion of recklessly endangering an­oth­er per­son in addi­tion to sen­tence for assault. State v. Wilson, 64 Or App 764, 669 P2d 1179 (1983)

Where defendant filed mo­tion to dismiss charge of pos­ses­sion of controlled substance contending that earlier guilty plea to firearms charge barred further pros­e­cu­­tion because simultaneous pos­ses­sion of concealed weapon and controlled substance is part of same crim­i­nal ac­tivity, trial court did not err in denying defendants mo­tion nor was it an abuse of discre­tion not to allow evidentiary hearing on mo­tion to dismiss because prosecutor lacked knowledge of sufficient fact to prosecute defendant on drug charge at time defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charge. State v. Lowery, 95 Or App 583, 770 P2d 923 (1989)

Defendants refusals to testify were separate events during different types of hearings at different times and did not constitute same of­fense. State v. Nefstad, 99 Or App 12, 781 P2d 358 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where each incident requires forma­tion of discrete crim­i­nal objective, incidents closely linked in time, place and circumstances can comprise separate crim­i­nal episodes. State v. Sparks, 150 Or App 293, 946 P2d 314 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Where original crim­i­nal objective continues throughout dura­tion of con­duct, existence of addi­tional crim­i­nal objective during part of con­duct does not turn events closely related in time, place and circumstances into separate crim­i­nal episodes. State v. Kautz, 179 Or App 458, 39 P3d 937 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Where time, place and commonality of purpose for two of­fenses are intertwined such that one of­fense cannot be related without relating details of other of­fense, of­fenses arise out of same crim­i­nal episode. State v. Norman, 216 Or App 475, 174 P3d 598 (2007)

Where defendant spanked one child then sec­ond child in turn, only one crim­i­nal episode occurred because defendants singular crim­i­nal objective was to spank children in one act of discip­line. State v. Burns, 259 Or App 410, 314 P3d 288 (2013)

Defendant, who killed first victim then killed sec­ond victim 12 hours later in order to take over victims drug business, committed mur­ders in same crim­i­nal episode. Defendants acts were continuous and uninterrupted necessary components to achieving defendants overarching crim­i­nal objective. State v. Tooley, 265 Or App 30, 333 P3d 348 (2014), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 104 (1973); 59 OLR 346 (1980); 18 WLR 232 (1982); 70 OLR 112 (1991); 27 WLR 913 (1991)

Notes of Decisions

Defendants mo­tion to dismiss the charge on the basis of double jeopardy after he had been tried and convicted was properly overruled since the double jeopardy clause does not attach at this stage of the pro­ceed­ings. State v. Haycraft, 20 Or App 28, 530 P2d 528 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

If the state must prosecute for only one charge because the defendant has voluntarily and unilaterally entered a plea of guilty on an­oth­er charge, there can be no argu­ment that the state has harassed the defendant. State v. Roach, 271 Or 764, 534 P2d 508 (1975)

Where jury was properly instructed on theft, fact that defendant at one time misplaced or withheld prop­erty from 20 different victims was sufficient to constitute 20 separate theft of­fenses on each of which defendant could be sen­tenced. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant pointed pistol at and obtained money from each of four bank tellers in succession there occurred four separate robbery of­fenses and defendant was properly sen­tenced on each con­vic­­tion. State v. Dellman, 34 Or App 937, 580 P2d 567 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant took victim from one place to an­oth­er for purpose of forcible rape was sufficient to support separate con­vic­­tions for first de­gree kidnapping and rape. State v. Strickland, 36 Or App 119, 584 P2d 310 (1978)

Where one defendant, at same time and place, withholds prop­erty of two or more victims, there are as many of­fenses as there are victims; each indict­ment thus charges separate of­fense and verdict in trial of first indict­ment does not bar pros­e­cu­­tions under other indict­ments. State v. Gilbert, 281 Or 101, 574 P2d 313 (1978)

Ac­tion charging of­fense and terminating in guilty plea was pros­e­cu­­tion for of­fense for double jeopardy purposes. State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813, 618 P2d 1245 (1980)

Where parties stipulated to the facts and defendant was convicted after trial to the court, jeopardy attached between time of fact stipula­tion and con­vic­­tion on lesser included of­fense, so retrial on greater of­fenses was barred by former jeopardy. State v. Adams, 56 Or App 303, 641 P2d 647 (1982)

Where defendant fired one shot toward group of three per­sons, fact that he may have recklessly endangered everyone in vicinity was incidental to act of shooting one per­son and defendant could be sen­tenced for only one con­vic­­tion of recklessly endangering an­oth­er per­son in addi­tion to sen­tence for assault. State v. Wilson, 64 Or App 764, 669 P2d 1179 (1983)

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 104 (1973); 59 OLR 346 (1980); 18 WLR 232 (1982)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 131—Preliminary Provisions; Limitations; Jurisdiction; Venue; Criminal Forfeiture; Crime Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 131, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.