2015 ORS 163.235¹
Kidnapping in the first degree

(1) A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if the person violates ORS 163.225 (Kidnapping in the second degree) with any of the following purposes:

(a) To compel any person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom;

(b) To hold the victim as a shield or hostage;

(c) To cause physical injury to the victim;

(d) To terrorize the victim or another person; or

(e) To further the commission or attempted commission of any of the following crimes against the victim:

(A) Rape in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.375 (Rape in the first degree) (1)(b);

(B) Sodomy in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.405 (Sodomy in the first degree) (1)(b); or

(C) Unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.411 (Unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree) (1)(b).

(2) Kidnapping in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §99; 2005 c.22 §112; 2009 c.660 §43]

Notes of Decisions

Proving intent to terrorize victim requires showing use of force or threat beyond what is re­quired to prove that ac­tion was without con­sent. State v. Swaggerty, 15 Or App 343, 515 P2d 952 (1973)

Evidence that defendant ultimately mur­dered victim, and that defendant may have been guilty of nonconsensual sexual con­duct, was insufficient to show that defendant had terrorized victim. State v. Nulph, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 642 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant kidnapped victim with purpose of forcibly raping her was sufficient to support a con­vic­­tion for kidnapping in first de­gree. State v. Strickland, 36 Or App 119, 584 P2d 310 (1978)

Where four victims were tied and gagged and told that if they at­tempted to leave they would be shot and fifth victim was forced at knife point to drive eight miles away, there was sufficient evidence from which jury could have concluded that defendant intended to interfere substantially with per­sonal liberty of all his victims. State v. Dinkel, 49 Or App 917, 621 P2d 626 (1980)

Where evidence demonstrated that defendant intended to interfere substantially with per­sonal liberty of each of his victims and jury found that separate intent to kidnap existed beyond intent to commit robbery, con­vic­­tion for each charge of kidnapping was proper. 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 victims 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

Where defendant contained victim to room in defendants house and two other individuals knew of victims loca­tion but individuals were not inc­lined to help victim, victim was held in place where the per­son is not likely to be found, which means found by individual who could reasonably be expected to help victim and not found by just any individual at all. State v. Kawamoto, 273 Or App 241, 359 P3d 305 (2015)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 467, 489-492 (1972); 15 WLR 23 (1978)

Notes of Decisions

Trial court properly admitted two handguns found in defendants 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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 163, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano163.­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.