131.215
Jurisdiction.
Except as otherwise provided in ORS 131.205 to 131.235, a person is subject to
prosecution under the laws of this state for an offense that the person commits
by the conduct of the person or the conduct of another for which the person is
criminally liable if:
(1) Either the
conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element
occurs within this state; or
(2) Conduct
occurring outside this state is sufficient under the law of this state to
constitute an attempt to commit an offense within this state; or
(3) Conduct
occurring outside this state is sufficient under the law of this state to
constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within this state and an overt act
in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs within this state; or
(4) Conduct
occurring within this state establishes complicity in the commission of, or an
attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit an offense in another
jurisdiction which also is an offense under the law of this state; or
(5) The offense
consists of the omission to perform a legal duty imposed by the law of this
state with respect to domicile, residence or a relationship to a person, thing
or transaction in this state; or
(6) The offense
violates a statute of this state that expressly prohibits conduct outside this
state affecting a legislatively protected interest of or within this state and
the actor has reason to know that the conduct of the actor is likely to affect
that interest. [1973 c.836 §10]
131.220 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
State v. Self, 706 P.2d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Self, 706 P.2d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 16× “205 etseq, provide, in ORS 131.215: “[A] person is subject to prosecution under the laws of this state for an offense that he commits by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which he is criminally liable if: * * * * “(4) Conduct occurring within this state establishes…”
State v. Hill, 373 P.3d 162 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “I believe that the answer to that question begins with ORS 131.215, which identifies who is subject to prosecution in state court for state criminal offenses.”
State v. Williams, 530 P.3d 919 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “Cite as 326 Or App 64 (2023) 75 The state advances several arguments in response.”
State v. Crain, 33 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“See ORS 131.215. We turn to defendant’s assertion that the trial court’s imposition of a dangerous offender sentence under ORS 161.”
State v. Roberts, 143 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
“at 1373 (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 131.215(5)). The court held that the gravamen of the offense was failure to return the television to the shop in Oregon; because it was a crime of omission, jurisdiction resided in Oregon, where the legal duty omitted (returning the television) was…”
State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 131.215(5). The circuit court had jurisdiction.”
State v. Smith, 625 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“12 ORS 131.215, which provides the basis for personal jurisdiction in criminal matters, states: "Except as otherwise provided * * * a person is subject to prosecution under the laws of this state for an offense that he commits by his own conduct * * * if: (1) Either the conduct…”
State v. Olson, 754 P.2d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Rodriguez sent the money, but defendant never delivered the trucks.”
State ex rel. Pyle v. Pyle, 826 P.2d 640 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The crux of defendant’s jurisdictional argument appears to be that the court that issued the original restraining order was without authority to prohibit defendant from contacting his wife once both parties were outside the state of Oregon and that, therefore, the restraining…”
State v. Williams (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “Neither party contends that Oregon could have territorial jurisdiction over this case under any provision of ORS 131.215 other than ORS 131.215(1). Likewise, no one contends that any other provision of ORS 131.”
State v. Watters, 156 P.3d 145 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“See ORS 131.215 (generally, “a person is subject to prosecution under the laws of this state for an offense that the person commits * * * if * * * the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element occurs within this state”); State v.”
Randall (D. Or. 2026).
· cites it 2× “) In his counseled brief,7 Randall argued that pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (“ORS”) § 131.215(1), jurisdiction for a crime lies in Oregon “if either the conduct or the result that is an element of the offense occurred in Oregon[,]” and that the State “did not meet either…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.215(1) — 5 cases
State v. Williams, 530 P.3d 919 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Cite as 326 Or App 64 (2023) 75 The state advances several arguments in response.”
State v. Olson, 754 P.2d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Rodriguez sent the money, but defendant never delivered the trucks.”
State ex rel. Pyle v. Pyle, 826 P.2d 640 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“The crux of defendant’s jurisdictional argument appears to be that the court that issued the original restraining order was without authority to prohibit defendant from contacting his wife once both parties were outside the state of Oregon and that, therefore, the restraining…”
State v. Williams (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Neither party contends that Oregon could have territorial jurisdiction over this case under any provision of ORS 131.215 other than ORS 131.215(1). Likewise, no one contends that any other provision of ORS 131.”
Randall (D. Or. 2026).
“) In his counseled brief,7 Randall argued that pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (“ORS”) § 131.215(1), jurisdiction for a crime lies in Oregon “if either the conduct or the result that is an element of the offense occurred in Oregon[,]” and that the State “did not meet either…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.215(2) — 2 cases
State v. Williams, 530 P.3d 919 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Cite as 326 Or App 64 (2023) 75 The state advances several arguments in response.”
State v. Williams (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Neither party contends that Oregon could have territorial jurisdiction over this case under any provision of ORS 131.215 other than ORS 131.215(1). Likewise, no one contends that any other provision of ORS 131.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.215(4) — 1 case
State v. Self, 706 P.2d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“205 etseq, provide, in ORS 131.215: “[A] person is subject to prosecution under the laws of this state for an offense that he commits by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which he is criminally liable if: * * * * “(4) Conduct occurring within this state establishes…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.215(5) — 2 cases
State v. Roberts, 143 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
“at 1373 (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 131.215(5)). The court held that the gravamen of the offense was failure to return the television to the shop in Oregon; because it was a crime of omission, jurisdiction resided in Oregon, where the legal duty omitted (returning the television) was…”
State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 131.215(5). The circuit court had jurisdiction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.