161.035
Application of Criminal Code.
(1) Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall govern the construction of and
punishment for any offense defined in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and
committed after January 1, 1972, as well as the construction and application of
any defense to a prosecution for such an offense.
(2) Except as
otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context requires otherwise, the
provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall govern the construction of
and punishment for any offense defined outside chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971,
and committed after January 1, 1972, as well as the construction and
application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense.
(3) Chapter 743,
Oregon Laws 1971, shall not apply to or govern the construction of and
punishment for any offense committed before January 1, 1972, or the
construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an
offense. Such an offense shall be construed and punished according to the law
existing at the time of the commission of the offense in the same manner as if
chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, had not been enacted.
(4) When all or
part of a criminal statute is amended or repealed, the criminal statute or part
thereof so amended or repealed remains in force for the purpose of authorizing
the accusation, prosecution, conviction and punishment of a person who violated
the statute or part thereof before the effective date of the amending or
repealing Act. [1971 c.743 §5]
Note: See note under 161.015.
161.040 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case:
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “See ORS 161.035. “ORS 161.405(1) provides: “A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct which consti- tutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.”
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 8× “To permit defendant to be sentenced under the post-1989 amendment to the criminal code for a criminal act that occurred before the change in the law would have the effect of reducing the prescribed punishment.”
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Finally, we examine the effect of ORS 161.035(2), which provides, as relevant here: " Except as otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context requires otherwise, the provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971 [Oregon Criminal Code], shall govern * * * the construction and…”
City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 714 P.2d 220 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 4× “045(1), disallowed the demurrer as to the City Code provision defining and prohibiting prostitution, but he allowed the demurrer as to the penalty provision because it “runs counter to ORS 161.035.” 5 A trial date was set. On that date, defendant’s motion to dismiss the…”
State v. Brown, 721 P.2d 1357 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 2× “ORS 161.035(4) addresses the effect of statutory amendments after the occurrence of the conduct and before a conviction becomes final.”
State v. McDonnell, 987 P.2d 486 (Or. 1999).
· cites it 5× “The court interpreted the pertinent statute, ORS 161.035(4), 4 and concluded: “It is clear from ORS 161.”
State v. Rutley, 171 P.3d 361 (Or. 2007).
· cites it 2× “ORS 161.035 (2). 7 As relevant here, one provision of the Code states: “Except as provided in ORS 161.”
State v. Fries, 185 P.3d 453 (Or. 2008).
“4 ORS 161.035(2) provides that the definition of “possess” in ORS 161.”
State v. Andrews, 27 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Dollarhide, 300 Or 490, 500 , 714 P2d 220 (1986) (concluding that ORS 161.035(2), which defines the scope and application of the Oregon Criminal Code, was not “intended to apply to offenses defined by cities”).”
State v. Haley, 667 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “ORS 161.035(2) provides that defenses adopted by the legislature after 1971 should be construed and applied in the same manner as defenses adopted as a part of Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971: “(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context requires otherwise,…”
State v. Hash, 578 P.2d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “However, see ORS 161.035(2). [1] ORS 166.460 provides: "ORS 166.”
State v. Brown, 761 P.2d 1300 (Or. 1988).
“560(2)), ORS 161.035(2) decrees that: “Except as otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context requires otherwise, the provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, shall govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined outside chapter 743, Oregon Laws *605…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.035(2) — 21 cases
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“See ORS 161.035. “ORS 161.405(1) provides: “A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct which consti- tutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.”
State v. Olmstead, 800 P.2d 277 (Or. 1990).
“Finally, we examine the effect of ORS 161.035(2), which provides, as relevant here: " Except as otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context requires otherwise, the provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971 [Oregon Criminal Code], shall govern * * * the construction and…”
City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 714 P.2d 220 (Or. 1986).
“045(1), disallowed the demurrer as to the City Code provision defining and prohibiting prostitution, but he allowed the demurrer as to the penalty provision because it “runs counter to ORS 161.035.” 5 A trial date was set. On that date, defendant’s motion to dismiss the…”
State v. Fries, 185 P.3d 453 (Or. 2008).
“4 ORS 161.035(2) provides that the definition of “possess” in ORS 161.”
State v. Rutley, 171 P.3d 361 (Or. 2007).
“ORS 161.035 (2). 7 As relevant here, one provision of the Code states: “Except as provided in ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.035(3) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.035(4) — 6 cases
State v. Isom, 837 P.2d 491 (Or. 1992).
“To permit defendant to be sentenced under the post-1989 amendment to the criminal code for a criminal act that occurred before the change in the law would have the effect of reducing the prescribed punishment.”
State v. Brown, 721 P.2d 1357 (Or. 1986).
“ORS 161.035(4) addresses the effect of statutory amendments after the occurrence of the conduct and before a conviction becomes final.”
State v. McDonnell, 987 P.2d 486 (Or. 1999).
“The court interpreted the pertinent statute, ORS 161.035(4), 4 and concluded: “It is clear from ORS 161.”
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.