ORS 163.375¹
Rape in the first degree

(1) A person who has sexual intercourse with another person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:

(a) The victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the person;

(b) The victim is under 12 years of age;

(c) The victim is under 16 years of age and is the person’s sibling, of the whole or half blood, the person’s child or the person’s spouse’s child; or

(d) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental defect, mental incapacitation or physical helplessness.

(2) Rape in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §111; 1989 c.359 §2; 1991 c.628 §3]

Notes of Decisions

An indict­ment for rape that does not specifically state that the female was not the defendant's wife will withstand a demurrer for insufficiency. State v. Aronhalt, 18 Or App 577, 526 P2d 463 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Sexual abuse in the first de­gree was held not to be a lesser-included-of­fense of at­tempted rape. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Knox, 20 Or App 455, 532 P2d 245 (1975)

Although evidence included state­ment by victim made to cause defendant to believe that she was con­senting to intercourse, but made with ultimate motive of opening avenue for her escape, evidence of rape was sufficient to submit to jury. State v. Forsyth, 20 Or App 624, 533 P2d 176 (1975)

Trial court was not re­quired to merge crimes of first de­gree rape and first de­gree sodomy (ORS 163.405 (Sodomy in the first degree)) for con­vic­­tion and sen­ten­cing. State v. Kendrick, 31 Or App 1195, 572 P2d 354 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant opposed state's mo­tion, to consolidate charges resulting from same con­duct, defendant waived double jeopardy protec­tion and the two findings of guilty were properly merged into one con­vic­­tion for sen­ten­cing. State v. Brissette, 31 Or App 1243, 572 P2d 1068 (1977)

Where defendant failed to argue at trial that there was no evidence of penetra­tion, issue could not be raised on ap­peal. State v. Tricker, 37 Or App 525, 588 P2d 48 (1978)

Evidence that, inter alia, defendant grabbed and slapped victim, threw her in car, struck her on head when she tried to escape, and held her hands behind her head while having sexual intercourse with her was sufficient to show lack of con­sent and forcible compulsion. State v. Dorsey, 44 Or App 721, 607 P2d 204 (1980)

In pros­e­cu­­tion for at­tempted rape under this sec­tion and ORS 161.405 ("Attempt" described), evidence that defendant asked victim "Can I rape you?" and then backed up his car toward her after she walked away does not prove that defendant intended to have forcible sexual intercourse with victim. State v. Graham, 70 Or App 589, 689 P2d 1315 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant forcibly compelled his son to have sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter, defendant was guilty of rape in first de­gree by opera­tion of this sec­tion and ORS 161.155 (Criminal liability for conduct of another). State v. Harvey, 303 Or 351, 736 P2d 191 (1987)

Trial court was not re­quired to consolidate sen­tences for six separate con­vic­­tions, one count each of first and third de­gree rape and two counts each of first and third de­gree sodomy because each first de­gree crime re­quired proof of ele­ment not necessary to prove corresponding third de­gree crime and legislature addressed distinct social concern in enacting each of statutory alternatives on which defendant was convicted. State v. Crotsley, 308 Or 272, 779 P2d 600 (1989)

Where jury was entitled to infer from evidence that defendant who was charged with rape in first de­gree subjected victims to "forcible compulsion," one ele­ment of charged crime in or within one mile of Multnomah County, Multnomah County trial court did not err in rejecting defendant's lack of venue argu­ment and denying his mo­tion or judg­ment of acquittal. State v. Sanarrita, 102 Or App 349, 794 P2d 457 (1990)

Where record contained evidence from which ra­tional jury could infer that defendant threatened, expressly or impliedly, to use physical force against an­oth­er, trial court did not err in denying defendant's mo­tion for acquittal. State v. Odoms, 117 Or App 1, 844 P2d 217 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Court refused to read defini­tion of daughter in ORS 109.041 (Relationship between adopted child and natural and adoptive parents) into this sec­tion. State v. Pennington, 120 Or App 360, 852 P2d 900 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Prohibi­tion against sexual intercourse with per­son "incapable of con­sent by reason of mental defect" is not vague under federal constitu­tional standards. Anderson v. Morrow, 371 F3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes

Person to whom complaint of sexual miscon­duct was made by prosecuting witness could testify that complaint was made, but could not testify as to details of complaint. State v. Waites, 7 Or App 137, 490 P2d 188 (1971)

There was no rule in this state that either re­quired or prohibited a cau­tionary instruc­tion concerning the victim's credibility. State v. Stocker, 11 Or App 617, 503 P2d 501 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion does not violate equal protec­tion pro­vi­sion of state and federal constitu­tions. State v. Elmore, 24 Or App 651, 546 P2d 1117 (1976)

In General

Indict­ments charging defendants with forcible "sexual intercourse with...a female" were sufficient, notwithstanding that indict­ments did not allege that defendants were males. State v. Routh/Hawkins, 30 Or App 901, 568 P2d 704 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Hamilton, 5 Or App 266, 483 P2d 90 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

In General

19 WLR 489 (1983)

Notes of Decisions

Under evidence that defendant inten­tionally touched victim's buttocks through clothing, whether such con­duct constituted "sexual contact" of victim's "intimate parts" was ques­tion for jury. State v. Buller, 31 Or App 889, 581 P2d 1263 (1977)

Genitalia and breasts are intimate parts as matter of law under this sec­tion, and undeveloped genitalia and breasts of children are included within defini­tion. State v. Turner, 33 Or App 157, 575 P2d 1007 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Rule that state is not permitted to introduce evidence of other crimes or bad acts solely to prove defendant acted as on prior occasions is strictly applied in sex crime cases, even those involving deviate sexual behavior, in so far as con­duct with per­sons other than victim is concerned. State v. Sicks, 33 Or App 435, 576 P2d 834 (1978)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 428, 518-522, 555 (1972)

Chapter 163

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 163—Offenses Against Persons, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors163.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 163, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­163ano.­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. Currency Information