ORS 164.095¹
Theft by receiving

(1) A person commits theft by receiving if the person receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft.

(2) It is a defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section if:

(a) The person is a scrap metal business as defined in ORS 165.116 (Definitions for ORS 165.116 to 165.124) or an agent or employee of a scrap metal business;

(b) The person receives or retains metal property as defined in ORS 165.116 (Definitions for ORS 165.116 to 165.124); and

(c) The person makes a report in accordance with ORS 165.118 (Metal property offenses) (3)(a).

(3) “Receiving” means acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property. [1971 c.743 §129; 2009 c.811 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 165.045)

This sec­tion re­quired actual knowledge or belief by the defendant that the prop­erty was stolen. State v. Redeman, 9 Or App 329, 496 P2d 230 (1972)

In General

A jury instruc­tion in the words of the statute is ambiguous and erroneous. An instruc­tion should advise a jury that the culpable mental state re­quired is actual knowledge on the part of the defendant, or belief by the defendant that the prop­erty was the subject of theft. State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973)

“Reason to know” prop­erty is stolen is insufficient absent showing of actual knowledge or belief. State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973)

Belief or knowledge that goods are stolen may be inferred from facts showing defendant had reason to believe goods were stolen. State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973); State v. Korelis, 273 Or 427, 541 P2d 468 (1975)

Defendant can properly be convicted of at­tempted theft by receiving even though the subject prop­erty was not stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)

In a theft pros­e­cu­­tion based upon illegally obtaining or receiving the prop­erty of an­oth­er, the state must prove the prop­erty was, in fact, stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)

Once prop­erty is recovered by the police, it ceases to be stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)

The trial court in instructing the jury properly recited the general theft pro­vi­sions of ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described) to provide the statutory context for the theft by receiving pro­vi­sion. State v. Schindler, 20 Or App 400, 531 P2d 915 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Where it was alleged that defendant sold automobile manifold knowing it was stolen, indict­ment charged defendant solely with first de­gree theft by sale under this sec­tion and ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described). State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980)

Evidence did not support theft by receiving theory where defendant’s travel expenses were paid by employer upon agree­ment that defendant would repay them when later reimbursed by FEMA for those expenses, and where defendant sub­se­quently did not do so and advised employer that he had not received reimburse­ment from FEMA. State v. Baker, 92 Or App 583, 759 P2d 321 (1988)

Defendant was entitled to UCJI No. 1806 on theft by receiving where he testified to meeting friend Paco on day before and again on day of arrest, at which time he bought allegedly stolen prop­erty, and that after putting items in his truck he gave Paco ride, developed car trouble and pulled into driveway near where he was shortly arrested, and where he further testified that Paco fled upon initial stop by police. State v. Cheney, 92 Or App 633, 759 P2d 1119 (1988)

Trial court properly instructed jury on culpable mental state needed to convict defendant under this sec­tion when court instructed jury that it must find defendant knew or believed prop­erty was stolen. State v. Ripka, 111 Or App 469, 827 P2d 189 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Original taker of items can be found to have committed theft by receiving due to reten­tion, conceal­ment or disposi­tion of items. State v. Harelson, 147 Or App 556, 938 P2d 763 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Pickens, 6 Or App 133, 487 P2d 95 (1971); State v. Penland, 6 Or App 255, 486 P2d 1314 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

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