Consolidation of theft offenses
- pleading and proof
Source:
Section 164.025 — Consolidation of theft offenses; pleading and proof, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors164.html
.
Notes of Decisions
An accusatory instrument that complies with this section is not in violation of ORS 132.550, 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
Conditional or restricted consent for entry onto property creates license or privilege only to extent with which condition or restriction is complied. State v. Endicott, 296 Or App 644, 439 P3d 510 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 431 (1972)