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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.275 (2026)

Entrapment

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

      161.275 Entrapment. (1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.

      (2) As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35]

 

RESPONSIBILITY

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: State v. McDaniel, 283 P.3d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McDaniel, 283 P.3d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 19× “In his sole assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because a police officer unlawfully induced him to engage in the charged conduct and, thus, the state did not disprove his defense of entrapment under…”
England v. State, 887 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Nor has the Court addressed that possibility at any time since the panel opinion in Langford. [8] A handful of other jurisdictions have employed the "because he was induced to do so" formulation of the inducement element in their entrapment statutes.”
State v. McBride, 599 P.2d 449 (Or. 1979). · cites it 4× “*318 Entrapment is defined in ORS 161.275: "(1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation…”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “270 (duress); ORS 161.275 (entrapment).4 One reason for the second circumstance in which the prosecutor may comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence to support a plain defense is that the jury could otherwise be misled if the defense raises a defense of alibi or…”
State v. Westlund, 729 P.2d 541 (Or. 1986). · cites it 2× “[2] See ORS 161.275. LENT and LINDE, Justices, dissenting.”
State v. Fuller, 504 P.2d 1393 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “ORS 161.275(2). Under this holding the court permits the recoupment obligation to be imposed in the judgment as a condition of probation, for violation of which a defendant may be incarcerated.”
State v. Miller, 422 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “275(1) (providing that "[t]he commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law…”
State v. Barr, 660 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See ORS 161.275. 1 He claimed that Curlings approached him on November 28 and requested his aid in a stolen check sale.”
State v. Presley, 733 P.2d 452 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 161.275 provides: “(1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law…”
State v. Murphy, 535 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Entrapment is a “defense,” as opposed to an “affirmative defense,” ORS 161.275, and if sufficiently raised must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Flajole, 129 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “190 (1971) (in prosecution for a crime, justification is a defense); ORS 161.275 (1971) (providing for use of entrapment evidence in prosecution for crime); ORS 161.”
State v. Mitchell, 650 P.2d 992 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “2 Entrapment is defined in ORS 161.275: *154 obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.275(1) — 6 cases
State v. Miller, 422 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “275(1) (providing that "[t]he commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law…”
State v. Mastne, 754 P.2d 4 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Benson, 345 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Benson, 345 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Williams, 347 Or. App. 108 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.275(2) — 7 cases
State v. McDaniel, 283 P.3d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “In his sole assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because a police officer unlawfully induced him to engage in the charged conduct and, thus, the state did not disprove his defense of entrapment under…”
State v. Fuller, 504 P.2d 1393 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “ORS 161.275(2). Under this holding the court permits the recoupment obligation to be imposed in the judgment as a condition of probation, for violation of which a defendant may be incarcerated.”
State v. Smith, 813 P.2d 1086 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Hedrick, 559 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
State v. Benson, 345 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
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.