2017 ORS 161.155¹
Criminal liability for conduct of another

A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if:

(1) The person is made criminally liable by the statute defining the crime; or

(2) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person:

(a) Solicits or commands such other person to commit the crime; or

(b) Aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime; or

(c) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the crime, fails to make an effort the person is legally required to make. [1971 c.743 §13]

Notes of Decisions

Defendant aided and abetted within the meaning of this sec­tion where he continued to aid accomplice in the com­mis­sion of a cafe burglary after accomplice used deadly weapon despite protests by defendant. State v. Hightower, 17 Or App 112, 520 P2d 470 (1974)

Aiding and abetting includes advising, counseling, procuring or encouraging an­oth­er in the com­mis­sion of a crime. State v. Smith, 18 Or App 39, 523 P2d 1048 (1974)

Where defendant and others unlawfully occupied farm shed of an­oth­er, defendant was liable for acts of his co-offenders. State v. Essig, 31 Or App 639, 571 P2d 170 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant, indicted for perpetrating crim­i­nal acts of first de­gree rape and first de­gree sodomy, challenged jury instruc­tion which allowed jury to find defendant guilty of charges if it found that defendant aided and abetted com­mis­sion of those crim­i­nal acts, such instruc­tion was proper. State v. LeBrun, 37 Or App 411, 587 P2d 1044 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where, although there was no direct evidence of collusion, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support inference that defendant and other had acted in concert in killing victim in their ac­tions both before and after crime, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of collusion to support instruc­tion on aiding and abetting. State v. Moriarty, 87 Or App 465, 742 P2d 704 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant met with other per­son on day before prop­erty was stolen, knew other per­son’s reputa­tion for “wheeling and dealing” and asked other per­son to sell him VCR and color television “used” at cheap price, did not es­tab­lish command or solicita­tion to commit crime. State v. Cheney, 92 Or App 633, 759 P2d 1119 (1988)

Where arrested defendant’s thrashing about was intended to assist others in resisting her arrest, it was not error for trial court to deny defendant’s mo­tion for judg­ment of acquittal on resisting arrest charge. State v. Hasan, 93 Or App 142, 760 P2d 1377 (1988)

Acquiescence alone is not sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holloway, 102 Or App 553, 795 P2d 589 (1990); State v. Anlauf, 164 Or App 672, 995 P2d 547 (2000)

Defendant aided and abetted sexual assault when defendant and co-defendant dragged victim into room, defendant had opportunity to observe co-defendant “going up” shirt of victim, defendant invited others into room, individuals invited into room yelled and victim screamed. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Arevalo, 117 Or App 505, 844 P2d 928 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

When defendant told undercover police of­fi­cer to “see that guy” about buying cocaine, ra­tional trier of fact could find defendant aided or abetted crime of delivering cocaine. State v. Bargas-Perez, 117 Or App 510, 844 P2d 931 (1992)

Where coconspirator commits separate crime during course of common crim­i­nal episode, defendant’s participa­tion in common crim­i­nal episode does not by itself es­tab­lish that defendant was aider and abettor in com­mis­sion of separate crime. State v. Anlauf, 164 Or App 672, 995 P2d 547 (2000)

Defendant indicted as principal in crime may be convicted under aid and abet theory without state pleading defendant’s intent to promote or facilitate crime. State v. Burney, 191 Or App 227, 82 P3d 164 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Criminal liability of defendant for acts of an­oth­er is limited to acts defendant intended to promote or facilitate. State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 236 Or App 270, 237 P3d 223 (2010), aff’d 350 Or 576, 260 P3d 439 (2011)

Person cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting based solely on con­duct that occurs after com­mis­sion of predicate of­fense. State v. Wilson, 240 Or App 475, 248 P3d 10 (2011)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Illegality of licensee approving plans prepared by one not an employe or licensed, (1972) Vol 35, p 1173; crim­i­nal liability of licensed nurse for con­duct of per­son practicing nursing who is not licensed and has not completed board-approved training program, (1980) Vol 41, p 166

Chapter 161

Notes of Decisions

A juvenile court adjudica­tion of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a crim­i­nal viola­tion if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudica­tion of all af­firm­a­tive de­fenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same crim­i­nal viola­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L.J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)

Law Review Cita­tions

2 EL 237 (1971); 51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Chapter 161

Criminal Code


Notes of Decisions

Legislature’s adop­tion of 1971 Criminal Code did not abolish doctrine of transferred intent. State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 295 P3d 1147 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 161—General Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors161.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 161, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano161.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.