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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.209 (2026)

Use of physical force in defense of a person

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

      161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

 

      161.210 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Bock (A169480), 485 P.3d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bock (A169480), 485 P.3d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “On appeal, defendant argues that it was error for the trial court to give the state’s instructions. He contends that the victim’s belief regarding the necessity of the use of force is irrelevant in evaluating a defendant’s self-defense claim.”
State v. Oliphant, 218 P.3d 1281 (Or. 2009). · cites it 10× “A person’s right to self-defense is set out in ORS 161.209, which provides: “Except [in circumstances not present here], a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be…”
State v. Butterfield, 549 P.3d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “See ORS 161.209 (governing when a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in self-defense) and ORS 161.”
State v. Sandoval, 156 P.3d 60 (Or. 2007). · cites it 9× “The first, ORS 161.209, describes when the use of physical force for self-defense is “justified” and, thus, lawful: “Except as provided in [another statute, not pertinent to this case] and [ORS] 161.”
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017). · cites it 2× “See ORS 161.209 (providing that a person may use “physical force upon another person for self- defense * * * from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force”).”
State v. Gilmore, 562 P.3d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Further, in three supplemental assignments, defendant argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by convicting him of a lesser-included crime without sufficient notice; that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal under ORS 161.209 and ORS 161.219; and that…”
State v. Longoria, 454 P.3d 813 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “Given the defense theory, the parties agreed that the trial court should give the jury the uniform instruc- tion on self-defense, Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction 1107, which is based on ORS 161.209, the statute recog- nizing self-defense as a defense.”
State v. Wright, 799 P.2d 642 (Or. 1990). · cites it 5× ““On the other hand, the defense of self-defense, as set out in ORS 161.209, provides that a person may use a reasonable degree of physical force to defend against what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force.”
State v. Lunow, 885 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “ORS 161.209. [1] We reverse. The victim, Donna Miller, and defendant testified to differing facts.”
Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “ORS 161.209; ORS 161.225. The failure to seek a judgment of acquittal on Counts 1 and 3 on those grounds, he claims, denied him adequate assistance of counsel.”
State v. Ryel, 51 P.3d 8 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “[1] ORS 161.209 provides: "Except as provided in ORS 161.”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “”); ORS 161.209 (self-defense or defense of another); ORS 161.”
Show all 112 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.209(1) — 1 case
Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 161.209; ORS 161.225. The failure to seek a judgment of acquittal on Counts 1 and 3 on those grounds, he claims, denied him adequate assistance of counsel.”
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.