Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 131.505 to 131.525

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

131.505 Definitions for ORS 131.505 to 131.525. As used in ORS 131.505 to 131.525, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) “Conduct” and “offense” have the meaning provided for those terms in ORS 161.085 and 161.505.

(2) When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions, each such violation constitutes a separate and distinct offense.

(3) When the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision, results in death, injury, loss or other consequences of two or more victims, and the result is an element of the offense defined, there are as many offenses as there are victims.

(4) “Criminal episode” means continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.

(5) A person is “prosecuted for an offense” when the person is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in any court of this state or in any court of any political subdivision of this state, and when the action either:

(a) Terminates in a conviction upon a plea of guilty, except as provided in ORS 131.525 (2);

(b) Proceeds to the trial stage and the jury is impaneled and sworn; or

(6) There is an “acquittal” if the prosecution results in a finding of not guilty by the trier of fact or in a determination that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. [1973 c.836 §26; 1983 c.509 §1; 2001 c.104 §42]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 185 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). · cites it 40× “The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence. We allowed review to reexamine the status of convictions on multiple charges arising from a single act, transaction, or episode after the 1973 statute.”

State v. Gensitskiy, 446 P.3d 26 (Or. 2019). · cites it 25× “That source appears to be ORS 131.505, which governs when the same conduct or criminal episode constitutes an offense for the purposes of Oregon's former jeopardy statutes.”

State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). · cites it 22× “520, 288 Or 527 (1980), to consider whether our decision in Hammang has present validity under ORS 131.505 and 131.515. 3 Those sections of the code were not applicable to Hammang’s prosecution although they were discussed in the various opinions in Hammang .”

State v. Witherspoon, 280 P.3d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 19× “Hence, defendant’s challenge to the court’s calculation of his criminal history score on Count 4 reduces to whether there is evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that Count 4 was separate from Counts 1 and 2 for purposes of the test established in ORS…”

State v. Burns, 314 P.3d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 22× “505(4) provides a definition for the former jeopardy provisions of ORS 131.505 to 131.525. The legislative history relied on by the majority underlying ORS 131.”

State v. Cloutier, 575 P.2d 996 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 23× “Gilbert, 281 Or 101 , 574 P2d 313 (1978), implicitly held that ORS 131.505, enacted in 1973, overruled State v.”

State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 404 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 11× “715(4), the statutory jeopardy bars of ORS 131.505 to 131.525 (addressing former jeopardy rules applied to adult crimes) and ORS 419A.”

State v. Tooley, 333 P.3d 348 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “095(l)(d), the murder of more than one victim “in the same criminal episode as defined in ORS 131.505” constitutes aggravated murder.”

State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). · cites it 23× “527 (1980), to *1247 consider whether our decision in Hammang has present validity under ORS 131.505 and 131.515. [3] Those sections of the code were not applicable to Hammang's prosecution although they were discussed in the various opinions in Hammang .”

State v. Barton, 468 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “4 4 Although Witherspoon involved analyzing the criminal episode test under ORS 131.505(4) to calculate the defendant’s criminal history score using double jeopardy principles, its analysis is relevant here.”

State v. Perkins, 607 P.2d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 10× “[2] * * ORS 131.505 obviously does not address that problem [whether a defendant prosecuted for multiple offenses may be sentenced for every offense of which he is found guilty], being limited by its own terms to the provisions governing single or separate prosecutions.”

State v. Linthwaite, 665 P.2d 863 (Or. 1983). · cites it 7× “ORS 131.505 does not, however, deal with sentencing.”

Show all 185 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(1) — 5 cases

State v. Sawatzky, 125 P.3d 722 (Or. 2005).

State v. Cox, 82 P.3d 619 (Or. 2003).

State v. Warner, 112 P.3d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Warner, 153 P.3d 674 (Or. 2007).

State v. Sanchez, 901 P.2d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(2) — 14 cases

State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence. We allowed review to reexamine the status of convictions on multiple charges arising from a single act, transaction, or episode after the 1973 statute.”

State v. Gensitskiy, 446 P.3d 26 (Or. 2019). “That source appears to be ORS 131.505, which governs when the same conduct or criminal episode constitutes an offense for the purposes of Oregon's former jeopardy statutes.”

State v. Cloutier, 575 P.2d 996 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “Gilbert, 281 Or 101 , 574 P2d 313 (1978), implicitly held that ORS 131.505, enacted in 1973, overruled State v.”

State v. Thompson, 659 P.2d 383 (Or. 1983).

State v. Steele, 577 P.2d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(3) — 19 cases

State v. Perkins, 607 P.2d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “[2] * * ORS 131.505 obviously does not address that problem [whether a defendant prosecuted for multiple offenses may be sentenced for every offense of which he is found guilty], being limited by its own terms to the provisions governing single or separate prosecutions.”

State v. Linthwaite, 628 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

State v. Linthwaite, 665 P.2d 863 (Or. 1983). “ORS 131.505 does not, however, deal with sentencing.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(4) — 93 cases

State v. Witherspoon, 280 P.3d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Hence, defendant’s challenge to the court’s calculation of his criminal history score on Count 4 reduces to whether there is evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that Count 4 was separate from Counts 1 and 2 for purposes of the test established in ORS…”

State v. Burns, 314 P.3d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “505(4) provides a definition for the former jeopardy provisions of ORS 131.505 to 131.525. The legislative history relied on by the majority underlying ORS 131.”

State v. Tooley, 333 P.3d 348 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “095(l)(d), the murder of more than one victim “in the same criminal episode as defined in ORS 131.505” constitutes aggravated murder.”

State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 404 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “715(4), the statutory jeopardy bars of ORS 131.505 to 131.525 (addressing former jeopardy rules applied to adult crimes) and ORS 419A.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(5) — 16 cases

State v. Hammang, 534 P.2d 501 (Or. 1975).

State v. Thompson, 659 P.2d 383 (Or. 1983).

State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). “520, 288 Or 527 (1980), to consider whether our decision in Hammang has present validity under ORS 131.505 and 131.515. 3 Those sections of the code were not applicable to Hammang’s prosecution although they were discussed in the various opinions in Hammang .”

State v. Warner, 112 P.3d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Roach, 534 P.2d 508 (Or. 1975).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(5)(a) — 7 cases

State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). “527 (1980), to *1247 consider whether our decision in Hammang has present validity under ORS 131.505 and 131.515. [3] Those sections of the code were not applicable to Hammang's prosecution although they were discussed in the various opinions in Hammang .”

State v. Gardner, 693 P.2d 1303 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Flaherty, 576 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

State v. Taylor, 660 P.2d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(5)(b) — 9 cases

State v. Jalo, 557 P.2d 1359 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

State v. Vogh, 41 P.3d 421 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

State v. Iverson, 57 P.3d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

State v. Carrillo, 804 P.2d 1161 (Or. 1991).

State Ex Rel. Turner v. Frankel, 908 P.2d 293 (Or. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(5)(c) — 2 cases

State v. Johnson, 552 P.2d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

State v. Allbritton, 931 P.2d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505(6) — 4 cases

State v. Sperry, 945 P.2d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

State v. Wolfs, 826 P.2d 623 (Or. 1992).

State v. Lindsay, 345 Or. App. 105 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

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.