ORS 163.225¹
Kidnapping in the second degree

(1) A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the second degree if, with intent to interfere substantially with another’s personal liberty, and without consent or legal authority, the person:

(a) Takes the person from one place to another; or

(b) Secretly confines the person in a place where the person is not likely to be found.

(2) It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (1) of this section if:

(a) The person taken or confined is under 16 years of age;

(b) The defendant is a relative of that person; and

(c) The sole purpose of the person is to assume control of that person.

(3) Kidnapping in the second degree is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §98; 2005 c.22 §111]

Notes of Decisions

Move­ment of a victim from an automobile parked on the service sta­tion lot to the sta­tion building on the lot was asporta­tion. State v. Talbot, 24 Or App 379, 545 P2d 599 (1976)

Evidence, inter alia, that defendant was a stranger to victim, that victim had left her car in haste, and that victim’s body was discovered some distance from car, was sufficient to support finding of sec­ond de­gree kidnapping. State v. Nulph, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 642 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Kidnapping was not merely incident to transac­tion involving also robbery and sodomy where defendant drove victim’s car several miles with bound victim in back seat. State v. Steele, 33 Or App 491, 577 P2d 524 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

California bail bondsmen took per­son from one place to an­oth­er “without con­sent or legal authority” within meaning of this sec­tion where they pursued and captured bail violator in Oregon and returned him to custody of California court. State v. Epps, 36 Or App 519, 585 P2d 425 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where indict­ment alleged that defendant took child from its mother at direc­tion of father and father had right to custody, taking was with con­sent of lawful custodian, and thus defendant could not be indicted under this sec­tion. State v. Edmiston, 43 Or App 13, 602 P2d 282 (1979)

Where defendant pursued victim, seized her and carried her to other side of road and at­tempted to force her down beside some shrubbery, finder of fact could fairly have inferred that defendant intended to interfere substantially with victim’s per­sonal liberty within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Cazares, 44 Or App 621, 606 P2d 688 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that, inter alia, defendant grabbed and slapped victim, threw her in car and held her down while he drove out of town was sufficient to show lack of con­sent to transporta­tion. State v. Dorsey, 44 Or App 721, 607 P2d 204 (1980)

Where defendant drove victim substantial distance in his pickup truck and detained her for over eight hours, this was not type of minimal displace­ment incidental to com­mis­sion of sodomy and failure to merge kidnapping and sodomy con­vic­­tions and sen­tences was not error. State v. Bateman, 48 Or App 357, 616 P2d 1206 (1980)

Where victims were tied and gagged and moved around their house but not taken beyond the house or moved a substantial distance, victims were “taken from one place to an­oth­er” within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Dinkel, 49 Or App 917, 621 P2d 626 (1980)

Legislative intent is that there may be separate con­vic­­tion and sen­tence for kidnapping only when it is not incidental to an­oth­er crime, and it may be found not to be incidental if defendant had intent to interfere substantially with victim’s per­sonal liberty. State v. Garcia, 288 Or 413, 605 P2d 671 (1980); State v. Thomas, 139 Or App 308, 911 P2d 1237 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant concealed victim in bathroom of victim’s apart­ment and held victim at knifepoint so as to prevent victim from responding to police of­fi­cer’s knocks was sufficient to support finding that defendant intended to substantially interfere with victim’s per­sonal liberty and that defendant “secretly confined” victim in place where victim was “not likely to be found.” State v. Montgomery, 50 Or App 381, 624 P2d 151 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant admitted that during robbery he moved employes and patrons from lounge to an­oth­er room and kept door locked from five to ten minutes, there was sufficient evidence for ra­tional jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that defendant had requisite intent to kidnap. State v. Rendahl, 58 Or App 688, 650 P2d 128 (1982)

Move­ment of upper two-thirds of victim’s body off driver’s seat of automobile did not meet this sec­tion’s require­ment of taking per­son from one place to an­oth­er. State v. Jefferson, 81 Or App 479, 726 P2d 392 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Sentencing of defendants separately on con­vic­­tions for kidnapping and for escape was proper because determina­tion of separate punish­ment for kidnapping depended on whether defendant intended to interfere substantially with victim’s per­sonal liberty. State v. Allen, 89 Or App 167, 747 P2d 384 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

to Convict Defendant of Kidnapping By Decep­tion, Prosecu­tion Must Prove Following Ele­ments

1) defendant intended to interfere substantially with an­oth­er’s per­sonal liberty; 2) defendant made misrepresenta­tion calculated to induce reliance by victim in order to accomplish in­ter­fer­ence; and 3) victim relied upon misrepresenta­tion in choosing to accompany defendant from one place to an­oth­er. State v. Amell, 303 Or 355, 736 P2d 561 (1987)

Act of taking per­son from one place to an­oth­er and act of secretly confining per­son in place where not likely to be found violate two separate “statutory pro­vi­sions” for proving first de­gree kidnapping. State v. O’Neall, 115 Or App 62, 836 P2d 758 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

There is no de minimis distance re­quired to constitute taking of per­son from one place to an­oth­er. State v. Thomas, 139 Or App 308, 911 P2d 1237 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Offense is “crime of violence” for purposes of federal career offender sen­ten­cing guide­lines. U.S. v. Williams, 110 F3d 50 (9th Cir. 1997)

Moving victim from one room to an­oth­er while com­mit­ting crime other than kidnapping, without intent to move victim farther or take victim to place of confine­ment, is insufficient to “substantially” interfere with per­sonal liberty. State v. Wolleat, 338 Or 469, 111 P3d 1131 (2005)

“Liberty” interest this sec­tion protects from in­ter­fer­ence is interest in freedom of move­ment. State v. Wolleat, 338 Or 469, 111 P3d 1131 (2005)

Moving victim short distance in course of com­mit­ting other crime does not constitute kidnapping unless defendant intended transporting victim greater distance than was accomplished or transporting victim to place of confine­ment. State v. Wolleat, 338 Or 469, 111 P3d 1131 (2005); State v. Claborn, 214 Or App 166, 162 P3d 374 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Whether defendant had intent to substantially interfere with liberty of victim may be determined by considering both move­ment of victim and confine­ment of victim. State v. Nguyen, 221 Or App 440, 190 P3d 462 (2008), modified 228 Or App 241, 206 P3d 1219 (2009), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Mejia, 348 Or 1, 227 P3d 1139 (2010)

Asporta­tion ele­ment of kidnapping is not met where actual distance victim is moved is not substantial and situa­tion and context are same. State v. Odnorozhenko, 224 Or App 288, 197 P3d 562 (2008)

Determina­tion of whether victim is moved “from one place to an­oth­er” is situa­tional and contextual and depends on multiple factors, including distance, limita­tion of per­sonal freedom and increase in isola­tion. State v. Walch, 346 Or 463, 213 P3d 1201 (2009)

Person does not commit repeated viola­tions of this pro­vi­sion by repeatedly taking victim from one place to an­oth­er. State v. Gerlach, 255 Or App 614, 300 P3d 193 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant during course of robbery forced victims at gunpoint from attached garage into bedroom inside house and from one bedroom to an­oth­er bedroom defendant’s con­duct was insufficient to es­tab­lish asporta­tion ele­ment of kidnapping under this sec­tion. State v. Ibabao, 270 Or App 508, 348 P3d 336 (2015)

Where defendant and victim checked into motel room, motel manager and others knew that defendant and victim had checked into room, defendant attacked victim throughout evening and threatened victim with further violence if victim called for help when visitors knocked on door, defendant secretly confined victim. State v. Vaughan-France, 279 Or App 305, 379 P3d 766 (2016), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 486, 490-492 (1972); 15 WLR 23 (1978)

Notes of Decisions

Trial court properly admitted two handguns found in defendant’s pos­ses­sion shortly after alleged com­mis­sion of crimes of kidnapping and robbery, where crimes were committed with aid of a handgun. State v. Manning, 39 Or App 279, 591 P2d 1195 (1979)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 428 (1972)

Chapter 163

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 163—Offenses Against Persons, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors163.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 163, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano163.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information