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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.225 (2026)

Use of physical force in defense of premises

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

      161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

      (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:

      (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or

      (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.

      (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “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. Brockway, 544 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” ORS 161.225(1). Once the defense was raised, the state had the burden of disprov- ing it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Burns, 516 P.2d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 5× “ORS 161.225 (2), ④ dealing with the defense of premises, provides that in order to justify the nse of deadly *558 physical force, there must he an actual or .”
State v. DeLucia, 596 P.2d 585 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “The instruction, as requested, follows exactly the language of ORS 161.225(1) which delineates the use of physical force in defense of premises.”
State v. Christian, 274 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “" ORS 161.225(2)(b). Thus, adopting the meaning of "unjustified" into the definition of "recklessly" and the definition of "recklessly" into PCC 14A.”
State v. Taylor, 48 P.3d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “209; 1 *246 ORS 161.225(1). 2 The trial court instructed the jury on those defenses and also, at the prosecution’s request, instructed the jury about limitations on the use of deadly physical force: “Even though a person may use a reasonable degree of physical force in defense…”
State v. Lockwood, 603 P.2d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “” ORS 161.225. "A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force 3 upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or…”
Brady v. Kroger, 221 P.3d 151 (Or. 2009). “219(3) (use of deadly physical force justified under certain circumstances, including reasonable belief that another person is “[u]sing or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person”); ORS 161.225 (use of physical force in defense of premises is justified when,…”
State v. Loew, 881 P.2d 837 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” ORS 161.225. We reverse. We view the facts in the light most favorable to defendant to determine whether there was evidence to support the requested instructions.”
Koennecke v. Lampert, 108 P.3d 653 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “” Likewise, ORS 161.225 provides limits for when deadly physical force is justified in defense of premises: “(1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably…”
State v. Williams, 374 Or. 648 (Or. 2025). “See also ORS 161.225 (justifying the use of “physical force in defense of premises”); ORS 161.”
State v. De Mauro, 526 P.3d 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “ORS 161.225 governs the use of physical force in defending one’s home.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.225(1) — 5 cases
State v. Brockway, 544 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” ORS 161.225(1). Once the defense was raised, the state had the burden of disprov- ing it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. DeLucia, 596 P.2d 585 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The instruction, as requested, follows exactly the language of ORS 161.225(1) which delineates the use of physical force in defense of premises.”
State v. Taylor, 48 P.3d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “209; 1 *246 ORS 161.225(1). 2 The trial court instructed the jury on those defenses and also, at the prosecution’s request, instructed the jury about limitations on the use of deadly physical force: “Even though a person may use a reasonable degree of physical force in defense…”
State v. Brockway (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. De Mauro, 526 P.3d 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “ORS 161.225 governs the use of physical force in defending one’s home.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.225(2) — 2 cases
State v. Burns, 516 P.2d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “ORS 161.225 (2), ④ dealing with the defense of premises, provides that in order to justify the nse of deadly *558 physical force, there must he an actual or .”
State v. De Mauro, 526 P.3d 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “ORS 161.225 governs the use of physical force in defending one’s home.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.225(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Christian, 274 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “" ORS 161.225(2)(b). Thus, adopting the meaning of "unjustified" into the definition of "recklessly" and the definition of "recklessly" into PCC 14A.”
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.