Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.425

Impossibility not a defense

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      161.425 Impossibility not a defense. In a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt where the conduct engaged in by the actor would be a crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them to be. [1971 c.743 §55]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: State v. Kimbrough
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kimbrough (2018) or · cites it 5× “*81 Yet that reasoning, as defendant acknowledges, must grapple with a statute, ORS 161.425, that provides: "In a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt where the conduct engaged in by the actor…”
State v. Kyger (2022) or · cites it 5× “” ORS 161.425. We explained that that statute, like the attempt statute, was drawn from the Model Penal Code, the commen- tary to which reasoned that “ ‘the liability of the actor turns on his purpose, considered in the light of his beliefs, and not on what is actually possible…”
State v. Martine (2016) orctapp · cites it 5× “27 For the following reasons, with particular reference to ORS 161.425, we agree. Our holding is ultimately predicated on ORS 161.”
State v. Hubbell (2021) orctapp “For instance, ORS 161.425 pro- vides, “In a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt where the conduct engaged in by the actor would be a crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them…”
State v. Pedersen (2011) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 161.425 (“In a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt where the conduct engaged in by the actor would be a crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them to be.”
State v. Stockert (2020) orctapp “This means, according to the state, that the fact that defendant shot at a decoy and not a live animal 318 State v.”
Darr v. People (1977) colo “); Oregon, Ore. Rev. Stat. §161.425 (1975); Pennsylvania, Pa.”
State v. Flajole (2006) orctapp “275 (1971) (providing for use of entrapment evidence in prosecution for crime); ORS 161.425 (1971) (in prosecution for attempt crime, impossibility is not a defense); ORS 162.”
State v. Tweed (2006) orctapp · cites it 2× “The state contends that defendant was convicted of attempting to induce Hall to be absent and that, under ORS 161.425, 1 impossibility is no defense to an attempt crime.”
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Aragorn (2003) orctapp “” In the attempt context, ORS 161.425 provides that “it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt *75 where the conduct engaged in by the actor would be a crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them to be.”
State v. Kimbrough (2017) orctapp “See ORS 161.425 (“In a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt where the conduct engaged in by the actor would be a crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them to be.”
State v. Mack (1977) orctapp “Therefore the finding necessarily includes findings of each of the elements of the included offense of attempted theft of lost or mislaid property even though the property was stolen rather than lost, because impossibility is not a defense to attempt by virtue of ORS 161.425,…”
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.