2007 ORS 161.225¹
Use of physical force in defense of premises

(1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:

(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person); or

(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.

(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, "premises" includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 (Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270) and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

Notes of Decisions

Since the legislature's inten­tion in enacting this sec­tion and ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person) was to codify the common law of self-de­fense and not to articulate a new standard, the statutory phrases requiring that there be a "felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a per­son," "unlawful deadly physical force," or a "felony by force and violence" are the func­tional equivalents of the case law require­ment of "great bodily harm." State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant is entitled to a jury instruc­tion on self-de­fense under either this sec­tion or ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person) if there is evidence in the record that he was in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm from the other per­son. State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

In pros­e­cu­­tion for menacing, under evidence, inter alia, that defendant knew of earlier confronta­tion, defendant had been past victim of vandalism, that juveniles had driven by house and sped away three times before parking in driveway, defendant was entitled to instruc­tion on theory that he acted in de­fense of his premises. State v. Lockwood, 43 Or App 639, 603 P2d 1231 (1979)

Law Review Cita­tions

21 EL 219 (1991)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (ORS 163.110)

There were cases where self-de­fense would not be a de­fense but the right to self-de­fense was still available to es­tab­lish that the defendant was engaged in a lawful act at the time of the killing. State v. Leos, 7 Or App 211, 490 P2d 521 (1971)

Chapter 161

Notes of Decisions

A juvenile court adjudica­tion of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a crim­i­nal viola­tion if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudica­tion of all af­firm­a­tive de­fenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same crim­i­nal viola­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L. J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)

Law Review Cita­tions

2 EL 237 (1971); 51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 161—General Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­161.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 161, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­161ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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.