“Theft” described
Source:
Section 164.015 — “Theft” described, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors164.html.
Notes of Decisions
Except in cases of extortion, indictment alleging defendant “takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds” property adequately conveys concept of theft without additional specification of means of theft. State v. Jim, 13 Or App 201, 508 P2d 462 (1973)
Theft by obtaining property requires that property obtained must actually be stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)
An indictment charging the defendant with the crime of theft which was framed in terms of this statute and ORS 164.055 adequately provided notice as required by due process. State v. Gray, 23 Or App 464, 543 P2d 316 (1975)
Where a defendant receives different items of stolen property from different individuals at different times, each act of receiving constitutes a separate interference with property rights which may be prosecuted as a violation of the theft statute. State v. Gilbert, 27 Or App 1, 555 P2d 31 (1976), aff’d 281 Or 101, 574 P2d 313 (1978)
Where indictment alleged that defendant sold automobile manifold knowing that it was stolen, indictment charged defendant solely with first degree theft by sale under this section and ORS 164.095. State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980)
Theft by taking did not merge for sentencing purposes with theft by receiving, committed by selling stolen item, because there were two criminal objectives and two separate victims. Smith v. State of Oregon, 78 Or App 485, 717 P2d 240 (1986)
Except for theft by extortion, separate definitions of various methods for accomplishing property deprivation do not create distinct offenses allowing separate punishments based on single deprivation of property. State v. Cox, 336 Or 284, 82 P3d 619 (2003)
To “take” property requires both dominion and control of property and movement of property. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 196 P3d 1037 (2008)
Even slight movement of property from place where defendant finds property is sufficient for establishing taking. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 196 P3d 1037 (2008); State v. Rocha, 233 Or App 1, 225 P3d 45 (2009), Sup Ct review denied
Accused appropriated property when accused withdrew funds from client’s account and disposed of funds for accused’s personal purposes even though accused claimed to repay funds to client’s account. In re Phinney, 354 Or 329, 311 P3d 517 (2013)
Defendant could not be criminally liable on theft-by-taking theory when there was no evidence that defendant participated in or even knew about taking of safe until after taking had occurred. State v. Zimmerman, 309 Or App 447, 483 P3d 39 (2021)
Up to date