ORS 164.115¹
Value of property

For the purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, the value of property shall be ascertained as follows:

(1) Except as otherwise specified in this section, value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot reasonably be ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime.

(2) Whether or not they have been issued or delivered, certain written instruments, not including those having a readily ascertainable market value, shall be evaluated as follows:

(a) The value of an instrument constituting an evidence of debt, including, but not limited to, a check, draft or promissory note, shall be considered the amount due or collectible thereon or thereby.

(b) The value of any other instrument which creates, releases, discharges or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege or obligation shall be considered the greatest amount of economic loss which the owner might reasonably suffer because of the loss of the instrument.

(3) The value of a gambling chip, token, imitation currency or similar device is its face value.

(4) The value of the wildlife listed in ORS 496.705 (Damage suits for unlawful killing of wildlife) is the amount of damages as specified in ORS 496.705 (Damage suits for unlawful killing of wildlife).

(5) When the value of property cannot reasonably be ascertained, it shall be presumed to be an amount less than $100 in a case of theft, and less than $500 in any other case.

(6) The value of single theft transactions may be added together if the thefts were committed:

(a) Against multiple victims by similar means within a 30-day period; or

(b) Against the same victim, or two or more persons who are joint owners, within a 180-day period. [1971 c.743 §131; 1987 c.907 §6; 1993 c.680 §22; 1997 c.867 §18; 2011 c.363 §2; 2019 c.399 §5]

Note: See note under 164.005 (Definitions).

Notes of Decisions

Invoice price of goods shipped to defendant’s home and not paid for was sufficient to es­tab­lish prima facie market value of the prop­erty, which could be rebutted by defendant. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where prop­erty is stolen from wholesaler, price at which wholesaler offers to sell it ordinarily reflects its market value. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence was insufficient to prove that damages in stripping bark from chittamwood trees exceeded $200 where only testimony as to damage came from prop­erty owner, his first state­ment was that it looked like “about $1,000 worth of damage” and he testified at trial that he could not put monetary value on the trees but sold the bark from damaged trees for $284. State v. Washburn, 53 Or App 258, 631 P2d 827 (1981), as modified by 54 Or App 64, 633 P2d 1321 (1981)

“Market value” presumes that both buyer and seller have accurate in­for­ma­­tion. State v. Pierce, 153 Or App 569, 962 P2d 35 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

For prop­erty to have “market value,” there must be actual market in which prop­erty has value in trade as demonstrated by existence of both willing buyer and willing seller. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Deford, 177 Or App 555, 34 P3d 673 (2001)

Tags and price code in­for­ma­­tion showing price at which goods were offered for retail sale are direct evidence of market value, not out-of-court asser­tion of value. State v. Pulver, 194 Or App 423, 95 P3d 250 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

To prove value of stolen prop­erty through evidence of cost of replace­ment prop­erty, state must prove that stolen prop­erty and replace­ment prop­erty are of equal effectiveness or have same utility. State ex rel Juvenile Depart­ment v. H.S., 237 Or App 385, 239 P3d 999 (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