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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515 (2026)

Previous prosecution; when a bar to second prosecution

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

      131.515 Previous prosecution; when a bar to second prosecution. Except as provided in ORS 131.525 and 131.535:

      (1) No person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offense.

      (2) No person shall be separately prosecuted for two or more offenses based upon the same criminal episode, if the several offenses are reasonably known to the appropriate prosecutor at the time of commencement of the first prosecution and establish proper venue in a single court.

      (3) If a person is prosecuted for an offense consisting of different degrees, the conviction or acquittal resulting therefrom is a bar to a later prosecution for the same offense, for any inferior degree of the offense, for an attempt to commit the offense or for an offense necessarily included therein.

      (4) A finding of guilty of a lesser included offense on any count is an acquittal of the greater inclusive offense only as to that count. [1973 c.836 §27; 1997 c.511 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 161 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). · cites it 32× “” "ORS 131.515. Except as provided in ORS 131.”
State v. Toste, 100 P.3d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 36× “Defendant first argues that the state's amended complaint violates ORS 131.515. That statute provides, in part: "Except as provided in ORS 131.”
State v. Cox, 82 P.3d 619 (Or. 2003). · cites it 15× “” Defendant asserts that, under the statute, he committed a single theft offense, for which he could be prosecuted only once consistently with ORS 131.515(1) 6 and Article I, section 12.”
State v. Potter, 234 P.3d 1073 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “To the extent that we implied in Delker that McIntyre informs only a former jeopardy challenge under subsection (1) of ORS 131.515, we disavow it. Although, to be sure, in McIntyre, 94 Or App at 243 , we stated that the successive prosecutions in that case violated both…”
State v. Warner, 112 P.3d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 30× “He filed a motion to dismiss those charges, citing ORS 131.515, Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). · cites it 8× “505(3), which provides that even in one episode of criminal conduct "there are as many offenses as there are victims," precluded treating the simultaneous withholding of the property of several owners as "the same offense" for purposes of ORS 131.”
State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). · cites it 32× “" "ORS 131.515. Except as provided in ORS 131.”
State v. Lyons, 985 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 15× “*360 The criminal code’s former jeopardy provision is codified at ORS 131.515. Subsection (1) of that statute is consistent with the constitutional prohibition against former jeopardy contained in Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, State v.”
State v. Fore, 62 P.3d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “Defendant relied on ORS 131.515(2), Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Wilder, 471 P.3d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 11× “1 We con- clude that the charges did not arise from the same criminal episodes under any of the relevant tests. Because separate prosecutions were permissible, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion.”
State v. O'donnell, 85 P.3d 323 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 17× “The court determined that (1) retrial as to all three counts was barred by the statutory double jeopardy provisions of ORS 131.515 because the court, in discharging the jury, failed to make a finding that “[t]he jury [was] unable to agree upon a verdict,” ORS 131.”
State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 404 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “In addition, we have considered a “defendant’s right, as embodied in ORS 131.515(2), to be free from being required to answer more than once for the same act or transaction.”
Show all 161 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515(1) — 43 cases
State v. Cox, 82 P.3d 619 (Or. 2003). “” Defendant asserts that, under the statute, he committed a single theft offense, for which he could be prosecuted only once consistently with ORS 131.515(1) 6 and Article I, section 12.”
State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). “” "ORS 131.515. Except as provided in ORS 131.”
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “505(3), which provides that even in one episode of criminal conduct "there are as many offenses as there are victims," precluded treating the simultaneous withholding of the property of several owners as "the same offense" for purposes of ORS 131.”
State v. Rathbun, 600 P.2d 392 (Or. 1979).
State Ex Rel. Turner v. Frankel, 908 P.2d 293 (Or. 1995).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515(2) — 88 cases
State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). “” "ORS 131.515. Except as provided in ORS 131.”
State v. Potter, 234 P.3d 1073 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “To the extent that we implied in Delker that McIntyre informs only a former jeopardy challenge under subsection (1) of ORS 131.515, we disavow it. Although, to be sure, in McIntyre, 94 Or App at 243 , we stated that the successive prosecutions in that case violated both…”
State v. Lyons, 985 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “*360 The criminal code’s former jeopardy provision is codified at ORS 131.515. Subsection (1) of that statute is consistent with the constitutional prohibition against former jeopardy contained in Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, State v.”
State v. Fore, 62 P.3d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “Defendant relied on ORS 131.515(2), Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 404 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “In addition, we have considered a “defendant’s right, as embodied in ORS 131.515(2), to be free from being required to answer more than once for the same act or transaction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515(3) — 12 cases
State v. Boots, 848 P.2d 76 (Or. 1993).
State v. Knowles, 618 P.2d 1245 (Or. 1980). “” "ORS 131.515. Except as provided in ORS 131.”
State v. Warner, 112 P.3d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “He filed a motion to dismiss those charges, citing ORS 131.515, Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Bannister, 846 P.2d 1189 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Perks, 847 P.2d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515(4) — 4 cases
State v. Warner, 112 P.3d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “He filed a motion to dismiss those charges, citing ORS 131.515, Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. O'donnell, 85 P.3d 323 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “The court determined that (1) retrial as to all three counts was barred by the statutory double jeopardy provisions of ORS 131.515 because the court, in discharging the jury, failed to make a finding that “[t]he jury [was] unable to agree upon a verdict,” ORS 131.”
State v. Mersman, 172 P.3d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Warner, 153 P.3d 674 (Or. 2007).
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.