Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.165

Exemptions to criminal liability for conduct of another

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

      161.165 Exemptions to criminal liability for conduct of another. Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if:

      (1) The person is a victim of that crime; or

      (2) The crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is necessarily incidental thereto. [1971 c.743 §15]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: State v. Gaines
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gaines (2015) orctapp · cites it 9× “ORS 161.165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. Merida-Medina (2008) orctapp · cites it 12× “165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defi n ed that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. Pine (2002) orctapp · cites it 16× “Judge Armstrong reasons that ORS 161.165(2) operates to prevent defendant from being criminally liable for third-degree assault because "[his conduct] is a necessary incident of third-degree assault that a person aid the person who injures the victim.”
State v. Oatney (2003) or · cites it 2× “" [9] ORS 161.165 relates to victims of crimes and persons whose conduct is necessarily incidental to crimes and, thus, is inapplicable to the issue discussed here.”
State v. Gray (2017) orctapp “Here, although defendant argued to the trial court that the statute of limitations had lapsed, he focused his argument on whether the evidence was sufficient to show “that [he had] acted within three years of August 25, [2011].”
State v. Lavadores (2009) orctapp “See ORS 161.165(2) (a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if the “crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is necessarily incidental thereto”).”
State v. Hull (1979) or “1 ORS 161.165, also referred to in ORS 136.”
State v. Torres (2006) orctapp “” ORS 161.165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. Phillips (2011) orctapp “165(2) provides that a person cannot be liable for the criminal conduct of another if the other’s crime “is so defined that the conduct of the person is necessarily incidental thereto.” (Emphasis added.) In Merida-Medina, only two persons participated in the attack.”
State v. Hull (1978) orctapp · cites it 2× “…He is a victim of that crime; or "(2) The crime is so defined that his conduct is necessarily incidental thereto." ORS 161.165.”
State v. Langley (2000) or “” ORS 161.165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. ORTIZ-RODRIGUEZ (2009) orctapp · cites it 2× “” ORS 161.165 limits that definition, providing that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime,” a person is not criminally liable for the criminal conduct of another person if “[t]he person is a victim of that crime” or “[t]he crime is so defined that…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.165(1) — 2 cases
State v. Merida-Medina (2008) orctapp “165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defi n ed that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. McMillin (2018) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.165(2) — 9 cases
State v. Gaines (2015) orctapp “ORS 161.165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. Merida-Medina (2008) orctapp “165 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by the statute defining the crime, a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if: “(1) The person is a victim of that crime; or “(2) The crime is so defi n ed that the conduct of the person is…”
State v. Pine (2002) orctapp “Judge Armstrong reasons that ORS 161.165(2) operates to prevent defendant from being criminally liable for third-degree assault because "[his conduct] is a necessary incident of third-degree assault that a person aid the person who injures the victim.”
State v. Gray (2017) orctapp “Here, although defendant argued to the trial court that the statute of limitations had lapsed, he focused his argument on whether the evidence was sufficient to show “that [he had] acted within three years of August 25, [2011].”
State v. Lavadores (2009) orctapp “See ORS 161.165(2) (a person is not criminally liable for conduct of another constituting a crime if the “crime is so defined that the conduct of the person is necessarily incidental thereto”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.165(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Pine (2002) orctapp “Judge Armstrong reasons that ORS 161.165(2) operates to prevent defendant from being criminally liable for third-degree assault because "[his conduct] is a necessary incident of third-degree assault that a person aid the person who injures the victim.”
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.