Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.325 (2026)

Place of trial; doubt as to place of crime; conduct outside of state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      131.325 Place of trial; doubt as to place of crime; conduct outside of state. If an offense is committed within the state and it cannot readily be determined within which county the commission took place, or a statute that governs conduct outside the state is violated, trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides, or if the defendant has no fixed residence in this state, in the county in which the defendant is apprehended or to which the defendant is extradited. [1973 c.836 §16]

 

      131.330 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Premo, 399 P.3d 431 (Or. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Premo, 399 P.3d 431 (Or. 2017). · cites it 4× “More specifically, petitioner *691 argued that, because, based on the evidence in the record, the jury could have found that the place of HF’s death could not be readily determined, a venue defense was not viable in light of the alternative venue provisions of ORS 131.325. 2…”
State v. Williams, 530 P.3d 919 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 18× “It determined that Washington County was an appropriate venue because “the location of the crime could not be ascertained,” ORS 131.325, and, the court found, Washington County was defendant’s place of residence.”
State v. Turner, 234 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “599 (2005) is ORS 131.325. It provides that, if an offense is committed within the State of Oregon "and it cannot readily be determined within which county the commission took place," trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides or is found.”
State v. Massei, 268 P.3d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “Defendant rejoins that the proper venue is in the county where she was present ten days after her birthdate, or alternatively, under ORS 131.325, that the proper venue was in the county where she resided.”
Johnson v. Premo, 370 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Shortly before trial, a grand jury issued a new indictment charging petitioner with additional counts of aggravated murder and alleging that petitioner had lived in, and had been extradited to, Washington County, thus implicating the presumptive venue provision of ORS 131.”
State v. Depeche, 255 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “In defendant’s view, because it “cannot readily be determined” within which county the offense was committed, under ORS 131.325, see 242 Or App at 164 -65 n 10, venue is proper only in the county in which he resided, that is, Multnomah County.”
State v. Rose, 843 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “For that reason, it relied on ORS 131.325, which provides: “If an offense is committed within the state and it cannot readily be determined within which county the commission took place, * * * trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides, or if the defendant…”
State v. Ritchie, 208 P.3d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “305(1), venue is proper under ORS 131.325 in the county where defendant resides “[i]f the offense is committed within the state and it cannot readily be determined within which county the commission took place.”
State v. MacNab, 194 P.3d 164 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” ORS 131.325 provides that, when it cannot be determined precisely where an offense was committed, “trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “Beyond that, ORS 131.325 provides, in part, that, "[i]f an offense is committed within the state and it cannot readily be determined within which county the commission took place, * * * [the] trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides * * *.”
State v. Paul, 345 Or. App. 348 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “ORS 131.325 provides: “If an offense is committed within the state and it cannot readily be determined within which county the commission took place, or a statute that governs conduct outside the state is violated, trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides,…”
State v. Thompson, 284 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “5 If it cannot readily be determined in which county the crime took place, ORS 131.325 provides that “trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides, or if the defendant has no fixed residence in this state, in the county in which the defendant is apprehended or…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.