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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.725 (2026)

Person injured or intended to be injured

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

      135.725 Person injured or intended to be injured. When a crime involves the commission of or an attempt to commit a private injury and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured or intended to be injured is not material. [Formerly 132.630]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Hull, 595 P.2d 1240 (Or. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hull, 595 P.2d 1240 (Or. 1979). · cites it 2× “2 Defendants also contend that they were entitled to a judgment of acquittal because the state did not prove that the animal alleged to have been stolen belonged to Ronald Doman, as alleged in the indictment, rather than possibly to one of several other ranchers.”
State v. Hull, 575 P.2d 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “This, in substance, is the meaning expressed in ORS 135.725: "When a crime involves the commission of or an attempt to commit a private injury and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured or…”
State v. Hill, 373 P.3d 162 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “717 (providing that the precise time of a crime need not be alleged); ORS 135.725 (providing that erroneous identification of the victim in the accusatory instrument is not material); ORS 135.”
State v. Woodward, 66 P.3d 556 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “” The identity of the owner of the property is not material.”
State v. Swinney, 343 Or. App. 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “015 and ORS 135.725)). Further, just as there is no indication in the text of ORS 163.”
State v. Kowalskij, 291 P.3d 802 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, we relied on ORS 135.725, which specifically provides that an erroneous allegation in a charging instrument “as to the person injured or intended to be injured is not material.”
State v. Wilcox, 823 P.2d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “The state argues that the substitution of a different victim is an immaterial change in form and points to ORS 135.725: *495 “When a crime involves the commission of or an attempt to commit a private injury and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify…”
State v. Ferguson, 323 P.3d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “825 (person who destroys will “shall be liable to any person injured by such violation for any damages sustained thereby”), with ORS 135.725 (when accusatory instrument is otherwise sufficient, “an erroneous allegation as to the person injured or intended to be injured is not…”
State v. Swinney, 343 Or. App. 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “015 and ORS 135.725)). Further, just as there is no indication in the text of ORS 163.”
State v. Roper, 578 P.2d 479 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “Although it is not specifically applicable here, the language of ORS 135.725 illuminates the general policy of the criminal code in this respect: "When a crime involves the commission of or an attempt to commit a private injury and is described with sufficient certainty in other…”
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.