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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.270 (2026)

Duress

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

      161.270 Duress. (1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense, other than murder, is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was coerced to do so by the use or threatened use of unlawful physical force upon the actor or a third person, which force or threatened force was of such nature or degree to overcome earnest resistance.

      (2) Duress is not a defense for one who intentionally or recklessly places oneself in a situation in which it is probable that one will be subjected to duress.

      (3) It is not a defense that a spouse acted on the command of the other spouse, unless the spouse acted under such coercion as would establish a defense under subsection (1) of this section. [1971 c.743 §34; 1987 c.158 §22]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “209 (self-defense or defense of another); ORS 161.270 (duress); ORS 161.275 (entrapment).”
State v. Boldt, 841 P.2d 1196 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “In order to constitute duress under ORS 161.270, the danger must be “present, imminent, and impending.”
State v. Rodriguez, 564 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “” 4 ORS 161.270 provides: “(1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense, other than murder, is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was coerced to do so by the use or threatened use of unlawful physical force…”
Tully v. State, 730 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “071 (Vernon 1979) (murder); Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.270 (1979) (murder); Wash.”
United States v. Larry Wayne Lafleur, United States of Am. v. Nick Michael Holm, 971 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1992). “§ 13-412(C); Colo. Rev.Stat. § 18-1-708; Ga.Code Ann. § 16-3-26; Ind.”
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 971 N.E.2d 783 (Mass. 2012). “010 (7) (2011); Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.270 (West 2003); Wash.”
State v. Hunter, 740 P.2d 559 (Kan. 1987). “071 (1986); Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.270 (1985); Wash. Rev.”
State v. Paul, 410 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “We turn next to ORS 161.270, which sets out the elements of the statutory duress defense.”
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 415 N.E.2d 805 (Mass. 1981). “071 (Vernon 1979) (murder); Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.270 (1979) (murder); Wash.”
State v. Bockorny, 863 P.2d 1296 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “It contends that ORS 161.270 does not allow a defense of duress in a prosecution for murder and, under ORS 163.”
State v. Whisman, 575 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Fitzgerald, supra, we held that a threat of future injury was insufficient; that in order to amount to duress under ORS 161.270, 2 the danger must be "present, imminent and impending”; that no such showing was made where defendant’s accomplice threatened a prisoner who had…”
State v. Fitzgerald, 513 P.2d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “Keeland’s only testimony about the “threatened use of unlawful physical force upon him * * * of such nature or degree to overcome [his] earnest resistance,” ORS 161.270 (1), was his statement that “Cooley said that he had friends on the outside that could take care of me.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.270(1) — 4 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 564 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” 4 ORS 161.270 provides: “(1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense, other than murder, is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was coerced to do so by the use or threatened use of unlawful physical force…”
State v. Bockorny, 863 P.2d 1296 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “It contends that ORS 161.270 does not allow a defense of duress in a prosecution for murder and, under ORS 163.”
State v. Paul, 410 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “We turn next to ORS 161.270, which sets out the elements of the statutory duress defense.”
State v. VanNatta, 945 P.2d 1062 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
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.