2017 ORS 161.435¹

(1) A person commits the crime of solicitation if with the intent of causing another to engage in specific conduct constituting a crime punishable as a felony or as a Class A misdemeanor or an attempt to commit such felony or Class A misdemeanor the person commands or solicits such other person to engage in that conduct.

(2) Solicitation is a:

(a) Class A felony if the offense solicited is murder or treason.

(b) Class B felony if the offense solicited is a Class A felony.

(c) Class C felony if the offense solicited is a Class B felony.

(d) Class A misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class C felony.

(e) Class B misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §57]

Notes of Decisions

Solicita­tion in Oregon of com­mis­sion of of­fense in an­oth­er jurisdic­tion is punishable under solicita­tion statutes if crime solicited is also of­fense in Oregon. State v. Self, 75 Or App 230, 706 P2d 975 (1985)

Completed communica­tion is re­quired to prove solicita­tion under this sec­tion and where defendant, while incarcerated, wrote letters to individual incarcerated in different facility outlining plan for future robbery but officials intercepted letters, defendant was guilty of at­tempted solicita­tion only. State v. Lee, 105 Or App 329, 804 P2d 1208 (1991)

“Specific con­duct” constituting crime requires that intended crim­i­nal act be specifically identifiable, not that full details for con­ducting intended crim­i­nal act be settled upon. State v. Johnson, 202 Or App 478, 123 P3d 304 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant, who solicited two individuals several days apart to commit same crime of kidnapping, committed two crimes of solicita­tion. State v. Badillo, 260 Or App 218, 317 P3d 315 (2013)

Evidence that defendant asked intermediary to deliver certain in­for­ma­­tion to third per­son, which defendant thought would cause that per­son to commit ag­gra­vat­ed mur­der and where intermediary was aware of crime for which defendant sought to procure third party, was sufficient to es­tab­lish that defendant solicited intermediary to aid and abet ag­gra­vat­ed mur­der. State v. Everett, 355 Or 670, 330 P3d 22 (2014)

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.