ORS 164.055¹
Theft in the first degree

(1) A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by means other than extortion, the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described) and:

(a) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $1,000 or more;

(b) The theft is committed during a riot, fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency in an area affected by the riot, fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency;

(c) The theft is theft by receiving committed by buying, selling, borrowing or lending on the security of the property;

(d) The subject of the theft is a firearm or explosive;

(e) The subject of the theft is a livestock animal, a companion animal or a wild animal removed from habitat or born of a wild animal removed from habitat, pursuant to ORS 497.308 (Wildlife holding and habitat removal permits) (2)(c); or

(f) The subject of the theft is a precursor substance.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) “Companion animal” means a dog or cat possessed by a person, business or other entity for purposes of companionship, security, hunting, herding or providing assistance in relation to a physical disability.

(b) “Explosive” means a chemical compound, mixture or device that is commonly used or intended for the purpose of producing a chemical reaction resulting in a substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat, including but not limited to dynamite, blasting powder, nitroglycerin, blasting caps and nitrojelly, but excluding fireworks as defined in ORS 480.111 (Definitions for ORS 480.111 to 480.165), black powder, smokeless powder, small arms ammunition and small arms ammunition primers.

(c) “Firearm” has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.210 (Definitions).

(d) “Livestock animal” means a ratite, psittacine, horse, gelding, mare, filly, stallion, colt, mule, ass, jenny, bull, steer, cow, calf, goat, sheep, lamb, llama, pig or hog.

(e) “Precursor substance” has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.940 (Precursor substances described).

(3) Theft in the first degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §125; 1973 c.405 §1; 1983 c.740 §32; 1987 c.907 §4; 1991 c.837 §9; 1993 c.252 §5; 1993 c.680 §20; 2005 c.706 §10; 2009 c.16 §3; 2009 c.610 §6; 2013 c.24 §11]

Notes of Decisions

Buying or selling stolen prop­erty is an essential ele­ment of theft in the first de­gree under this sec­tion. State v. Dechand, 13 Or App 530, 511 P2d 430 (1973)

This sec­tion authorizes “aggrega­tion” only if component acts are part of same “transac­tion” as that word has been pre­vi­ously defined by Oregon Supreme Court. State v. Barnes, 14 Or App 23, 511 P2d 1235 (1973); State v. Pena, 15 Or App 582, 516 P2d 761 (1973)

An indict­ment charging the defendant with the crime of theft which was framed in terms of this statute and ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described) adequately provided notice as re­quired by due process. State v. Gray, 23 Or App 464, 543 P2d 316 (1975)

Since state may not reach back in time to crim­i­nal con­duct occurring beyond statute of limita­tions to construct charge of first de­gree theft, con­vic­­tion under this sec­tion was improper where evidence showed that only one pay­ment of $50 was made to defendant after November 7, 1974 and less than $200 was obtained by defendant during three years prior to indict­ment. State v. Scott, 48 Or App 623, 617 P2d 681 (1980)

Evidence that defendant had access to firearms, was seen with them night of theft and sold one of them was sufficient for jury to find that essential ele­ments of crime of this sec­tion had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. State v. Taylor, 54 Or App 428, 634 P2d 1381 (1981)

Revolver that could be made operable in three to four minutes at cost of $6 was “readily capable” of use as a weapon within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Gortmaker, 60 Or App 723, 655 P2d 575 (1982), aff’d on other grounds, 295 Or 505, 668 P2d 354 (1983)

Where defendant was experienced district attorney and had himself prosecuted policeman for misappropria­tion of confiscated guns and where it was undisputed that firearm was prop­erty of Marion County and that destruc­tion order did not authorize defendant to give gun to private individual, ra­tional jury could infer that defendant intended to appropriate to third per­son prop­erty he knew was not his to give away. State v. Gortmaker, 60 Or App 723, 655 P2d 575 (1982), aff’d on other grounds, 295 Or 505, 668 P2d 354 (1983)

Theft by taking, ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described), 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)

Value of prop­erty sold is irrelevant when charge is selling stolen prop­erty. Gill v. Cupp, 78 Or App 505, 717 P2d 211 (1986)

Ele­ment of conceal­ment in ORS 164.095 (Theft by receiving) is incorporated in this sec­tion through ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described) (5) and ORS 164.095 (Theft by receiving); conceal­ment can be continuing act and, therefore, crime of theft by receiving can be continuing crime. State v. Knutson, 81 Or App 353, 725 P2d 407 (1986)

Where defendant ap­pealed con­vic­­tion for theft by receiving committed by selling, claiming fatal variance between indict­ment and proof because sale was not consummated, crime was nonetheless sufficiently de­scribed in indict­ment and defendant was not mislead nor prejudiced in prepara­tion of his de­fense. State v. Swanson, 90 Or App 543, 753 P2d 431 (1988)

That firearm was “readily capable of use as weapon” may be es­tab­lished by evidence other than test firing of weapon. State v. Bennett, 79 Or App 267, 719 P2d 38 (1986), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Wise, 150 Or App 449, 946 P2d 363 (1997)

Culpable mental state re­quired by defini­tion of theft does not extend to other ele­ments constituting of­fense of theft in first de­gree. State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 196 P3d 97 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

Crime of unlawful entry into motor vehicle is not lesser included of­fense of at­tempted theft in the first de­gree. State v. Medley, 239 Or App 25, 243 P3d 147 (2010)

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