Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115

Construction of statutes with respect to culpability

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

      161.115 Construction of statutes with respect to culpability. (1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state.

      (2) Except as provided in ORS 161.105, if a statute defining an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, culpability is nonetheless required and is established only if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence.

      (3) If the definition of an offense prescribes criminal negligence as the culpable mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish a culpable mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish a culpable mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally.

      (4) Knowledge that conduct constitutes an offense, or knowledge of the existence, meaning or application of the statute defining an offense, is not an element of an offense unless the statute clearly so provides. [1971 c.743 §10]

 

      161.120 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Prophet
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Prophet (2022) orctapp · cites it 32× “ORS 161.115. Those rules dif- fer depending on whether a criminal statute contains an explicit mental state, governed by ORS 161.”
State v. Owen (2022) or · cites it 15× “The Oregon Criminal Code includes provisions defining a “culpable mental state” and delineating four different mental states, ORS 161.”
State v. Stowell (2020) orctapp · cites it 18× “We further noted that ORS 161.115(1) provides that, “[i]f a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the 3 At the time that Jones was decided, first-degree theft required proof that the property stolen was worth at least $750.”
State v. Buttrey (1982) or · cites it 15× “095, ORS 161.115, and ORS 161.105. ORS 161.085 lists and defines four culpable mental states — intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and criminal negligence — each of which require a form of awareness or failure to be aware as a requirement of criminal liability.”
State v. Shedrick (2022) or · cites it 7× “115 provide the following guidance: “(1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a…”
State v. Simonov (2016) or · cites it 6× “” ORS 161.115(1). If, as with the UUV statute, ORS 164.”
State v. Miller (1990) or · cites it 7× “115, which provides, in part: "(1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable…”
State v. Jones (2008) orctapp · cites it 4× “” In turn, ORS 161.115(1) provides, “[i]f a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a…”
State v. Wier (2013) orctapp · cites it 6× “415 does not explicitly prescribe a culpable mental state, the rule of statutory construction set out at ORS 161.115(1) does not apply. That rule states, “If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies,…”
State v. Hamlett (2010) orctapp · cites it 8× “095(2) and ORS 161.115(1). For statutes defining offenses outside the criminal code, ORS 161.”
State v. Engen (1999) orctapp · cites it 7× “095(2), ORS 161.115(1), and ORS 475.992(4), the state is not required to prove a defendant’s knowledge of the particular type of controlled substance possessed.”
State v. Rutley (2007) or · cites it 3× “105, and ORS 161.115 — are pertinent to the determination whether a mental state nonetheless must attach to an offense or a material element of an offense.”
Show all 120 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115(1) — 32 cases
State v. Owen (2022) or “The Oregon Criminal Code includes provisions defining a “culpable mental state” and delineating four different mental states, ORS 161.”
State v. Prophet (2022) orctapp “ORS 161.115. Those rules dif- fer depending on whether a criminal statute contains an explicit mental state, governed by ORS 161.”
State v. Stowell (2020) orctapp “We further noted that ORS 161.115(1) provides that, “[i]f a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the 3 At the time that Jones was decided, first-degree theft required proof that the property stolen was worth at least $750.”
State v. Jones (2008) orctapp “” In turn, ORS 161.115(1) provides, “[i]f a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a…”
State v. Shedrick (2022) or “115 provide the following guidance: “(1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Wayman (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115(2) — 60 cases
State v. Stowell (2020) orctapp “We further noted that ORS 161.115(1) provides that, “[i]f a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the 3 At the time that Jones was decided, first-degree theft required proof that the property stolen was worth at least $750.”
State v. Buttrey (1982) or “095, ORS 161.115, and ORS 161.105. ORS 161.085 lists and defines four culpable mental states — intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and criminal negligence — each of which require a form of awareness or failure to be aware as a requirement of criminal liability.”
State v. Prophet (2022) orctapp “ORS 161.115. Those rules dif- fer depending on whether a criminal statute contains an explicit mental state, governed by ORS 161.”
State v. Simonov (2016) or “” ORS 161.115(1). If, as with the UUV statute, ORS 164.”
State v. Shedrick (2022) or “115 provide the following guidance: “(1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115(3) — 27 cases
State v. Simonov (2016) or “” ORS 161.115(1). If, as with the UUV statute, ORS 164.”
State v. Shedrick (2022) or “115 provide the following guidance: “(1) If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies, the prescribed culpable mental state applies to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a…”
State v. Cook (1999) orctapp
State v. Wier (2013) orctapp “415 does not explicitly prescribe a culpable mental state, the rule of statutory construction set out at ORS 161.115(1) does not apply. That rule states, “If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies,…”
State v. Christian (2012) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115(4) — 11 cases
State v. Langan (1982) or
State v. Van Norsdall (1994) orctapp
State v. Wier (2013) orctapp “415 does not explicitly prescribe a culpable mental state, the rule of statutory construction set out at ORS 161.115(1) does not apply. That rule states, “If a statute defining an offense prescribes a culpable mental state but does not specify the element to which it applies,…”
State v. Reed (2026) orctapp
State v. Jacobs (1981) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.115(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Wesley (2013) orctapp
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.