Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.465

Verdict where crime or attempt included within charge

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

      136.465 Verdict where crime or attempt included within charge. In all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any crime the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument or of an attempt to commit such crime. [Formerly 136.660]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Cunningham
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cunningham (1994) or · cites it 12× “ORS 136.465. However, a defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense unless there is evidence from which a jury `could rationally find guilt of a lesser [included] offense and no guilt of the offense charged.”
State v. Swanson (2011) or · cites it 24× “The Court of Appeals reasoned that violations and crimes are distinctive categories of offenses and, under ORS 136.465, juries are authorized to consider only lesser-included crimes, not lesser-included violations, of a charged crime.”
State v. Palaia (1980) or · cites it 18× “The statute governing lesser included offenses is ORS 136.465, which provides: "In all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any crime the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged in the accusatory instrument or of an attempt to commit…”
State v. Isom (1992) or · cites it 8× “Defendant argues that the trial court erred under ORS 136.465, discussed post, when it failed to instruct the jury on the intentional murder charge.”
Pereida-Alba v. Coursey (2015) or · cites it 4× “Rather, the court observed that the leg- islature, by enacting ORS 136.465, intended to provide a jury with a “third option” when there is any evidence which would support a verdict on a lesser offense and the jury would otherwise be faced, as they were here, with the lim- ited…”
State v. Bowen (2006) or · cites it 3× “460 9 and ORS 136.465 10 and his rights under the United States Constitution.”
State v. Zolotoff (2014) or · cites it 5× “1 On appeal, the state conceded that the trial court had erred when it denied defendant’s request that it instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted possession of a weapon by an inmate, ORS 136.465. 2 The Court of Appeals agreed, rejected the state’s argument…”
State v. Carson (1982) or · cites it 6× “455 as authority for submitting to the jury the two degrees of murder and pointed to what is now ORS 136.465 as authority for submitting other "grades" of homicide, namely, in that case, manslaughter.”
State v. Barrie (2009) orctapp · cites it 5× “That principle is tempered, however, by the legislature’s command that, “[i]n all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any crime the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrumenté” ORS 136.465. As the…”
State v. White (1987) or · cites it 3× “ORS 136.465 provides: “In all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any crime the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument * * The text of the statute does not require that there be evidence .”
State v. Wille (1993) or · cites it 3× “ORS 136.465. 6 However, a defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense unless there is evidence from which a jury “could rationally find guilt of a lesser [included] offense and no guilt of the offense charged.”
State v. Cloutier (1979) or · cites it 2× “Because similar problems have arisen and will continue to arise in many other cases, however, it seems pertinent to mention distinctions between the Woolard rule reaffirmed today and other situations involving multiple offenses, distinctions which may or may not bear upon the…”
Show all 86 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.