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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.219 (2026)

Limitations on use of deadly 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

      161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

      (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

      (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

      (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

 

      161.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Butterfield, 549 P.3d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Butterfield, 549 P.3d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 28× “1 The parties do not dispute that defendant used deadly physical force against C and L when he shot them, thus implicating ORS 161.219. “ ‘Deadly physical force’ means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious…”
State v. Gilmore, 562 P.3d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 15× “209 and ORS 161.219; and that the trial court erred by con- victing him of first-degree manslaughter.”
State v. Sandoval, 156 P.3d 60 (Or. 2007). · cites it 11× “” The cross-referenced statute, ORS 161.219, deals specifically with the use of deadly physical force.”
State v. Cook, 135 P.3d 260 (Or. 2006). · cites it 2× “” However, the legislature has imposed limitations on the use of physical force set out in ORS 161.219: “[A] person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is: “(1) Committing or attempting…”
State v. Cox, 540 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “The use of deadly force in self-defense is limited to certain situations, one of which is when the person reason- ably believes that someone is “[c]ommitting or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person.”
State v. Christian, 274 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “" ORS 161.219. Further, a person is justified in using deadly physical force in defense of premises "[w]hen the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission [by a trespasser] of arson or a felony by force and violence * * *.”
State v. Burns, 516 P.2d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 6× “Whether defendant’s evidence entitled him to a jury instruction on the issue of self-defense is governed by ORS 161.219 and ORS 161.225(2), which limit a per *557 son’s right to use deadly physical force in defense of Ms person or premises.”
Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “ORS 161.219 provides, in part: “[A] person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is: *333 “(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of…”
State v. Oliphant, 218 P.3d 1281 (Or. 2009). “” ORS 161.219 provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.”
State v. Woodford, 428 P.3d 971 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “1 Under ORS 161.219, which describes limitations on the use of deadly physical force in self-defense, "a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is: "(1) Committing or attempting to…”
State v. Swinney, 343 Or. App. 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “)); Gilmore, 336 Or App at 714-15 (“[J] ustification for the use of deadly force under ORS 161.219 is specific to the particular ‘other person’ that is engaged in the conduct described by ORS 161.”
State v. Ryel, 51 P.3d 8 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “" ORS 161.219 provides limitations on the use of deadly force in self-defense: "Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.219(1) — 9 cases
State v. Butterfield, 549 P.3d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “1 The parties do not dispute that defendant used deadly physical force against C and L when he shot them, thus implicating ORS 161.219. “ ‘Deadly physical force’ means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious…”
State v. Gilmore, 562 P.3d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “209 and ORS 161.219; and that the trial court erred by con- victing him of first-degree manslaughter.”
State v. Cox, 540 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The use of deadly force in self-defense is limited to certain situations, one of which is when the person reason- ably believes that someone is “[c]ommitting or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person.”
State v. Christian, 274 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “" ORS 161.219. Further, a person is justified in using deadly physical force in defense of premises "[w]hen the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission [by a trespasser] of arson or a felony by force and violence * * *.”
State v. Swinney, 343 Or. App. 22 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “)); Gilmore, 336 Or App at 714-15 (“[J] ustification for the use of deadly force under ORS 161.219 is specific to the particular ‘other person’ that is engaged in the conduct described by ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.219(3) — 5 cases
State v. Cox, 540 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The use of deadly force in self-defense is limited to certain situations, one of which is when the person reason- ably believes that someone is “[c]ommitting or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person.”
State v. Wright, 572 P.2d 667 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
Brady v. Kroger, 221 P.3d 151 (Or. 2009).
Holcomb v. Taylor, 397 P.3d 517 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. McAdoo, 346 Or. App. 513 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
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.