2015 ORS 164.325¹
Arson in the first degree

(1) A person commits the crime of arson in the first degree if:

(a) By starting a fire or causing an explosion, the person intentionally damages:

(A) Protected property of another;

(B) Any property, whether the property of the person or the property of another person, and such act recklessly places another person in danger of physical injury or protected property of another in danger of damage; or

(C) Any property, whether the property of the person or the property of another person, and recklessly causes serious physical injury to a firefighter or peace officer acting in the line of duty relating to the fire; or

(b) By knowingly engaging in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the person causes fire or causes an explosion that damages property described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(2) Arson in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §144; 1991 c.946 §1; 2005 c.706 §4]

Notes of Decisions

State failed to corroborate confession of at­tempted arson with evidence showing that on day following at­tempted arson house in ques­tion burned, and while evidence of sec­ond day's burning would tend to prove that defendant engaged in continuing course of con­duct it did not provide independent corroborative evidence of at­tempted arson of pre­vi­ous day. State v. Swearengin, 32 Or App 349, 573 P2d 362 (1978)

Arson in sec­ond de­gree may be lesser included of­fense under indict­ment for arson in first de­gree of an­oth­er's protected prop­erty. State v. Gibson, 42 Or App 575, 600 P2d 962 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Where fires were started in commercial es­tab­lish­ment half hour prior to time employes customarily arrived, defendant was entitled to instruc­tion on lesser included of­fense of arson in sec­ond de­gree. State v. Gibson, 42 Or App 575, 600 P2d 962 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Since legislature did not intend that defendant who set fire to number of items with objective of damaging single protected structure should be subjected to multiple con­vic­­tions and sen­tences, con­vic­­tion of three counts of viola­tion of this sec­tion and imposi­tion of three consecutive terms was improper and the case was remanded to enter judg­ment for con­vic­­tion of one count and resen­ten­cing. State v. King, 42 Or App 721, 601 P2d 845 (1979)

As ele­ment of proof under this sec­tion, state must prove prop­erty had "value" as defined by ORS 164.005 (Definitions) and neither "symbolic value" or "value in use" is sufficient; therefore, burning rag could not support con­vic­­tion of first de­gree arson. State v. Whitley, 295 Or 455, 666 P2d 1340 (1983)

Since prop­erty owner is sole victim of act damaging prop­erty, multiple counts based on single act exposing multiple entities to risk of physical injury or other sec­ondary consequences merge. State v. Luers, 211 Or App 34, 153 P3d 688 (2007), modified 213 Or App 389, 160 P3d 1013 (2007)

Correc­tion

The cita­tion to State v. Washington in the permanent edi­tion should be 5 Or App 347.

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Washington, 5 Or App 347, 483 P2d 465 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

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.