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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.150 (2026)

Criminal liability described

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

      161.150 Criminal liability described. A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the person’s own conduct or by the conduct of another for which the person is criminally liable, or both. [1971 c.743 §12]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1976–2016 · leading case: State v. Pine, 82 P.3d 130 (Or. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pine, 82 P.3d 130 (Or. 2003). · cites it 7× “ORS 161.150 provides: “A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the person’s own conduct or by the conduct of another for which the person is criminally liable, or both.”
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). · cites it 2× “21, § 172 (West 2001); Ore.Rev.Stat. §§ 161.150, 161.155 (2003); 18 Pa.”
State v. Pine, 45 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 16× “; see also ORS 161.150 ("A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by [his] *154 own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which [he] is criminally liable, or both.”
State v. Burney, 82 P.3d 164 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “220 was repealed in 1971 as part of the revision of the Criminal Code, ORS 161.150 and 161.155, defining criminal liability, lead us to the same conclusion.”
State v. Wagner, 752 P.2d 1136 (Or. 1988). · cites it 2× “What questions like these show is that neither a circuit court nor this court can assure that a death sentence is not applied beyond its authorized reach when a defendant pleads guilty and does not raise or let counsel raise the legal issues.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “ORS 161.150 provides that “[a] person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the person’s own conduct or by the conduct of another for which the person is criminally liable, or both.”
State v. Burrow, 653 P.2d 226 (Or. 1982). · cites it 2× “ORS 161.150 makes one guilty of a crime "if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is criminally liable, or both.”
Hale v. Belleque, 298 P.3d 596 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” In rejecting that claim, the post-conviction court found, among other facts, 13 that “[t]he trial court instructed the jury on criminal liability for the conduct of another person pursuant to ORS 161.150 and ORS 161.155.” The post-conviction court found that trial counsel…”
Hale v. Belleque, 312 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “However, in his seventh claim for post-conviction relief, petitioner asserted that trial counsel was inadequate in failing to object to jury instructions that “did not specify that Petitioner was being tried as an accomplice, a status which involves a different or additional…”
State v. LeBrun, 587 P.2d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “220 was repealed in 1971 as part of the revision of the Criminal Code, 2 ORS 161.150 and 161.155, defining criminal liability, lead us to the same conclusion.”
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979). · cites it 2× “Thus the state had two choices: it could prosecute him in Multnomah County as a party to the robbery itself under ORS 161.150 or 161.155, 6 or it could prosecute him in Clackamas County for joining the conspiracy in *630 that county.”
State v. Hull, 595 P.2d 1240 (Or. 1979). “Later it concludes: "The new criminal liability statutes appear to be a rational approach to the definition of who is an accomplice because if a person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another, he has participated to some degree in the offense charged and can…”
Show all 25 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.