ORS 164.015¹
“Theft” described

A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person:

(1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof;

(2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065 (Theft of lost, mislaid property);

(3) Commits extortion as provided in ORS 164.075 (Extortion) by compelling or inducing another person to deliver property;

(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085 (Theft by deception); or

(5) Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.095 (Theft by receiving). [1971 c.743 §123; 2007 c.71 §47; 2016 c.47 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Except in cases of extor­tion, indict­ment alleging defendant “takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds” prop­erty adequately conveys con­cepts of theft without addi­tional specifica­tion of means of theft. State v. Jim, 13 Or App 201, 508 P2d 462 (1973)

Theft by obtaining prop­erty requires that prop­erty obtained must actually be stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)

An indict­ment charging the defendant with the crime of theft which was framed in terms of this statute and ORS 164.055 (Theft in the first degree) adequately provided notice as re­quired by due process. State v. Gray, 23 Or App 464, 543 P2d 316 (1975)

Where a defendant receives different items of stolen prop­erty from different individuals at different times, each act of receiving constitutes a separate in­ter­fer­ence with prop­erty rights which may be prosecuted as a viola­tion of the theft statute. State v. Gilbert, 27 Or App 1, 555 P2d 31 (1976), aff’d 281 Or 101, 574 P2d 313 (1978)

Where indict­ment alleged that defendant sold automobile manifold knowing that it was stolen, indict­ment charged defendant solely with first de­gree theft by sale under this sec­tion and ORS 164.095 (Theft by receiving). State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980)

Theft by taking did not merge for sen­ten­cing purposes with theft by receiving, committed by selling stolen item, because there were two crim­i­nal objectives and two separate victims. Smith v. State of Oregon, 78 Or App 485, 717 P2d 240 (1986)

Except for theft by extor­tion, separate defini­tions of various methods for accomplishing prop­erty depriva­tion do not create distinct of­fenses allowing separate punish­ments based on single depriva­tion of prop­erty. State v. Cox, 336 Or 284, 82 P3d 619 (2003)

To “take” prop­erty requires both dominion and control of prop­erty and move­ment of prop­erty. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 196 P3d 1037 (2008)

Even slight move­ment of prop­erty from place where defendant finds prop­erty is sufficient for es­tab­lishing taking. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 196 P3d 1037 (2008); State v. Rocha, 233 Or App 1, 225 P3d 45 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

Accused appropriated prop­erty when accused withdrew funds from client’s account and disposed of funds for accused’s per­sonal purposes even though accused claimed to repay funds to client’s account. In re Phinney, 354 Or 329, 311 P3d 517 (2013)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 432, 525-536 (1972); 10 WLJ 156 (1974)

Chapter 164

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 164—Offenses Against Property, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors164.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 164, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano164.­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