131.315
Special provisions.
(1) If conduct constituting elements of an offense or results constituting
elements of an offense occur in two or more counties, trial of the offense may
be held in any of the counties concerned.
(2) If a cause of
death is inflicted on a person in one county and the person dies therefrom in
another county, trial of the offense may be held in either county.
(3) If the
commission of an offense commenced outside this state is consummated within
this state, trial of the offense shall be held in the county in which the
offense is consummated or the interest protected by the criminal statute in
question is impaired.
(4) If an offense
is committed on any body of water located in, or adjacent to, two or more
counties or forming the boundary between two or more counties, trial of the
offense may be held in any nearby county bordering on the body of water.
(5) If an offense
is committed in or upon any railroad car, vehicle, aircraft, boat or other
conveyance in transit and it cannot readily be determined in which county the
offense was committed, trial of the offense may be held in any county through
or over which the conveyance passed.
(6) If an offense
is committed on the boundary of two or more counties or within one mile
thereof, trial of the offense may be held in any of the counties concerned.
(7) A person who
commits theft, burglary or robbery may be tried in any county in which the
person exerts control over the property that is the subject of the crime.
(8) If the offense
is an attempt or solicitation to commit a crime, trial of the offense may be
held in any county in which any act that is an element of the offense is
committed.
(9) If the
offense is criminal conspiracy, trial of the offense may be held in any county
in which any act or agreement that is an element of the offense occurs.
(10) A person who
in one county commits an inchoate offense that results in the commission of an
offense by another person in another county, or who commits the crime of
hindering prosecution of the principal offense, may be tried in either county.
(11) A criminal
nonsupport action may be tried in any county in which the dependent child is
found, irrespective of the domicile of the parent, guardian or other person
lawfully charged with support of the child.
(12)(a) If the
offense is theft, forgery or identity theft and the offense consists of an
aggregate transaction involving more than one county, trial of the offense may
be held in any county in which one of the acts of theft, forgery or identity
theft was committed.
(b) If the
offense is two or more offenses listed in ORS 137.717 (2) committed against the
same victim within a 180-day period, trial of the offenses may be held in any
county in which one of the offenses was committed.
(13) When a
prosecution is for violation of the Oregon Securities Law, the trial of the
offense may be held in the county in which:
(a) The offer to
purchase or sell securities took place or where the sale or purchase of
securities took place; or
(b) Any act that
is an element of the offense occurred.
(14) When a
prosecution under ORS 165.692 and 165.990 or 411.675 and 411.990 (2) and (3)
involves Medicaid funds, the trial of the offense may be held in the county in
which the claim was submitted for payment or in the county in which the claim
was paid.
(15)(a) If the
offense is stalking under ORS 163.732 and involves contacts as defined in ORS
163.730 in more than one county, trial of the offense may be held in any county
in which a contact occurred.
(b) If the
offense is violating a court’s stalking protective order under ORS 163.750,
trial of the offense may be held in the county in which the defendant engaged
in conduct prohibited by the order or in the county in which the order was
issued. [1973 c.836 §15; 1987 c.603 §26; 1989 c.384 §1; 1993 c.680 §28; 1995
c.496 §7; 2007 c.584 §3; 2009 c.212 §1; 2023 c.151 §1]
131.320 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
State v. Berndt, 386 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Berndt, 386 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 16× “315(12) provided, “If the offense is theft and the offense consists of an aggregate transaction involving more than one county, trial of the offense may be held in any county in which one of the acts of theft was committed.”
State v. Werdell, 122 P.3d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “The court rejected defendant’s venue argument, ruling that, under ORS 131.315(10), 3 the charges could be brought either in the county where Everts committed the underlying offenses or in the county where defendant’s hindering actions took place.”
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979).
· cites it 9× “ORS 131.315 provides a number of special rules.”
State v. McCown, 833 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 14× “The exceptions in ORS 131.315 to the general venue rule apply to traffic crimes.”
State v. O'NEALL, 836 P.2d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “ORS 131.315(5) provides, in part: "If an offense is committed in or upon any * * * vehicle * * * in transit and it cannot readily be determined in which county the offense was committed, trial of the offense may be held in any county through or over which the conveyance passed.”
State v. Massei, 268 P.3d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “7 We note, additionally, that even here we do take judicial notice as requested by the state, it is not clear how that would satisfy the venue provisions of ORS 131.315.”
State v. McCright, 386 P.3d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “305(1) and ORS 131.315. 10 The prosecutor and the court referred, in colloquy, to ORS 131.”
State v. Wrisley, 909 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Defendant also assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge, contending that the state failed to prove venue in Lane County.”
State v. Rose, 843 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “) We followed Lehman in upholding ORS 131.315(6), the present version of the statute at issue in that case, except that it does not require doubt as to where the crime was committed.”
State v. Depeche, 255 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“” 9 For that reason, we also reject the state’s alternative argument that venue was appropriate in either Washington County (where defendant was arrested while in noncompliance) or Multnomah County (where defendant resided while in noncompliance) under ORS 131.315(1). That…”
State v. Harris, 256 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 131.315(1). Generally, “[flor purposes of establishing venue, it is sufficient that at least one essential element of a charged offense occurred in the county in question.”
State v. Dillenburg, 621 P.2d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“ORS 131.315(1). The defendant was charged by indictment with escape from a correctional facility, specifically the Oregon State Penitentiary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(1) — 17 cases
State v. Depeche, 255 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“” 9 For that reason, we also reject the state’s alternative argument that venue was appropriate in either Washington County (where defendant was arrested while in noncompliance) or Multnomah County (where defendant resided while in noncompliance) under ORS 131.315(1). That…”
State v. Dillenburg, 621 P.2d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“ORS 131.315(1). The defendant was charged by indictment with escape from a correctional facility, specifically the Oregon State Penitentiary.”
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979).
“ORS 131.315 provides a number of special rules.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(10) — 3 cases
State v. Werdell, 122 P.3d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“The court rejected defendant’s venue argument, ruling that, under ORS 131.315(10), 3 the charges could be brought either in the county where Everts committed the underlying offenses or in the county where defendant’s hindering actions took place.”
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979).
“ORS 131.315 provides a number of special rules.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(12) — 2 cases
State v. Berndt, 386 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“315(12) provided, “If the offense is theft and the offense consists of an aggregate transaction involving more than one county, trial of the offense may be held in any county in which one of the acts of theft was committed.”
State v. McCright, 386 P.3d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“305(1) and ORS 131.315. 10 The prosecutor and the court referred, in colloquy, to ORS 131.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(5) — 2 cases
State v. O'NEALL, 836 P.2d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 131.315(5) provides, in part: "If an offense is committed in or upon any * * * vehicle * * * in transit and it cannot readily be determined in which county the offense was committed, trial of the offense may be held in any county through or over which the conveyance passed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(6) — 5 cases
State v. McCown, 833 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“The exceptions in ORS 131.315 to the general venue rule apply to traffic crimes.”
State v. Massei, 268 P.3d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“7 We note, additionally, that even here we do take judicial notice as requested by the state, it is not clear how that would satisfy the venue provisions of ORS 131.315.”
State v. Rose, 843 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“) We followed Lehman in upholding ORS 131.315(6), the present version of the statute at issue in that case, except that it does not require doubt as to where the crime was committed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(7) — 4 cases
State v. Berndt, 386 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“315(12) provided, “If the offense is theft and the offense consists of an aggregate transaction involving more than one county, trial of the offense may be held in any county in which one of the acts of theft was committed.”
State v. McCright, 386 P.3d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“305(1) and ORS 131.315. 10 The prosecutor and the court referred, in colloquy, to ORS 131.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(8) — 3 cases
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979).
“ORS 131.315 provides a number of special rules.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.315(9) — 7 cases
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979).
“ORS 131.315 provides a number of special rules.”
State v. Wrisley, 909 P.2d 877 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“Defendant also assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge, contending that the state failed to prove venue in Lane County.”
State v. Harris, 256 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“” ORS 131.315(1). Generally, “[flor purposes of establishing venue, it is sufficient that at least one essential element of a charged offense occurred in the county in question.”
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.