2015 ORS 164.025¹
Consolidation of theft offenses
  • pleading and proof

Caution-flag-2-25x25
This section is amended
Effective January 1, 2017
Relating to notario fraud; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 131.125, 131.602, 162.235, 164.015, 164.025, 164.035, 164.075, 194.315, 194.340 and 701.098.

(1) Except for the crime of theft by extortion, conduct denominated theft under ORS 164.015 ("Theft" described) constitutes a single offense.

(2) If it is an element of the crime charged that property was taken by extortion, an accusation of theft must so specify. In all other cases an accusation of theft is sufficient if it alleges that the defendant committed theft of property of the nature or value required for the commission of the crime charged without designating the particular way or manner in which the theft was committed.

(3) Proof that the defendant engaged in conduct constituting theft as defined in ORS 164.015 ("Theft" described) is sufficient to support any indictment, information or complaint for theft other than one charging theft by extortion. An accusation of theft by extortion must be supported by proof establishing theft by extortion. [1971 c.743 §122]

Notes of Decisions

An accusatory instru­ment that complies with this sec­tion is not in viola­tion of ORS 132.550 (Contents of indictment), Ore. Const. Art. I, §11, or U.S. Const., Am. 6. State v. Jim, 13 Or App 201, 508 P2d 462 (1973)

When an indict­ment purports to charge theft in the first de­gree and alleges sufficient facts to do so, and alternative charge of a lower de­gree of theft arising from the same con­duct may be properly alleged in the same count. State v. Stapleton, 27 Or App 389, 556 P2d 156 (1976)

Where indict­ment was sufficient to charge defendant with theft of automobile manifold by both appropria­tion and sale, defendant's demurrer was improperly sustained since con­duct alleged could constitute only single of­fense under this sec­tion. State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980)

Although this sec­tion allows accusatory instru­ment to charge theft without specifying particular kind of theft, where accusatory instru­ment did not describe subcategory of theft by receiving it was error to rank defendant's con­vic­­tion in category 3 for sen­ten­cing purposes. State v. Ripka, 111 Or App 469, 827 P2d 189 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 431 (1972)

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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 164, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano164.­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.