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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.095 (2026)

Requirements for criminal liability

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

      161.095 Requirements for criminal liability. (1) The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which the person is capable of performing.

      (2) Except as provided in ORS 161.105, a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state. [1971 c.743 §8]

 

      161.100 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 149 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Owen, 505 P.3d 953 (Or. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Owen, 505 P.3d 953 (Or. 2022). · cites it 25× “The Oregon Criminal Code includes provisions defining a “culpable mental state” and delineating four different mental states, ORS 161.”
State v. Shedrick, 518 P.3d 559 (Or. 2022). · cites it 16× “The parties contest whether the state had to prove any culpable mental state for the property-value element by initially focusing on the meaning of one of those general culpability statutes, ORS 161.095(2). That statute provides 260 State v.”
State v. Newman, 302 P.3d 435 (Or. 2013). · cites it 29× “” Defendant argued that evidence of his sleepwalking was relevant to negate the requirements for criminal liability under ORS 161.095 — specifically, proof of a voluntary act with respect to the driving element of DUII.”
State v. Tippetts, 43 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “Defendant reasons that turning the voluntary act of possession into the predicate for holding him liable for involuntarily introducing marijuana into the jail stretches the word “includes” too far.”
State v. Prophet, 507 P.3d 735 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “095, we explained that the drafters intended the phrase “material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state” to encompass all elements “that are relevant to the harm or evil incident 5 The requisite value has subsequently been raised to $1000 by Or…”
State v. Buttrey, 651 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1982). · cites it 16× “085, and describing when a culpable mental state must be proved, ORS 161.095, ORS 161.115, and ORS 161.105.”
State v. Miller, 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990). · cites it 12× “095, a culpable mental state is not required if: "* * * * * "(b) An offense defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal Code clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with any culpable mental state requirement for the offense or for any material element thereof.…”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). · cites it 4× “The exception to which ORS 161.095 refers provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 161.”
State v. Olive, 312 P.3d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “Defendant argues that, under ORS 161.095(2), as construed in our opinion in State v.”
State v. Cervantes, 223 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “" The court went on to note that crimes require a "voluntary act," ORS 161.095, that neither former ORS 475.”
State v. Jones, 196 P.3d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “105 provides, in part: “(1) Notwithstanding ORS 161.095, a culpable mental state is not required if: ****** “(b) An offense defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal Code clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with any culpable mental state requirement for the…”
State v. Rainoldi, 268 P.3d 568 (Or. 2011). · cites it 5× “” The exception to which ORS 161.095 refers provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 161.”
Show all 149 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.095(1) — 25 cases
State v. Tippetts, 43 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Defendant reasons that turning the voluntary act of possession into the predicate for holding him liable for involuntarily introducing marijuana into the jail stretches the word “includes” too far.”
State v. Newman, 302 P.3d 435 (Or. 2013). “” Defendant argued that evidence of his sleepwalking was relevant to negate the requirements for criminal liability under ORS 161.095 — specifically, proof of a voluntary act with respect to the driving element of DUII.”
State v. Cervantes, 223 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “" The court went on to note that crimes require a "voluntary act," ORS 161.095, that neither former ORS 475.”
City of Eugene v. Smyth, 243 P.3d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “The exception to which ORS 161.095 refers provides, in part: “Notwithstanding ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.095(2) — 104 cases
State v. Owen, 505 P.3d 953 (Or. 2022). “The Oregon Criminal Code includes provisions defining a “culpable mental state” and delineating four different mental states, ORS 161.”
State v. Shedrick, 518 P.3d 559 (Or. 2022). “The parties contest whether the state had to prove any culpable mental state for the property-value element by initially focusing on the meaning of one of those general culpability statutes, ORS 161.095(2). That statute provides 260 State v.”
State v. Prophet, 507 P.3d 735 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “095, we explained that the drafters intended the phrase “material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state” to encompass all elements “that are relevant to the harm or evil incident 5 The requisite value has subsequently been raised to $1000 by Or…”
State v. Olive, 312 P.3d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Defendant argues that, under ORS 161.095(2), as construed in our opinion in State v.”
State v. Buttrey, 651 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1982). “085, and describing when a culpable mental state must be proved, ORS 161.095, ORS 161.115, and ORS 161.105.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.095(l) — 1 case
City of Eugene v. Smyth, 243 P.3d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
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.