Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.465 (2026)

Duration of conspiracy

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

      161.465 Duration of conspiracy. For the purpose of application of ORS 131.125:

      (1) Conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are completed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom the defendant conspired.

      (2) Abandonment is presumed if neither the defendant nor anyone with whom the defendant conspired does any overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy during the applicable period of limitation.

      (3) If an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to the individual only if and when the individual advises those with whom the individual conspired of the abandonment or the individual informs the law enforcement authorities of the existence of the conspiracy and of the participation of the individual therein. [1971 c.743 §62; 1973 c.836 §340]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1974–2002 · leading case: State v. Huffman, 672 P.2d 1351 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
State v. Huffman, 672 P.2d 1351 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Davis, 19 Or App 446, 450 , 528 P2d 117 (1974); ORS 161.465(1). 4 Although we would not infer a perpetual conspiracy, see State v.”
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979). · cites it 2× “When the legislature has specifically indicated the limited purpose of thus defining the temporal duration of a conspiracy, we will not extend ORS 161.465 to a different issue. In contrast to its earlier ruling, the court subsequently instructed the jury: “The crime of…”
State v. Davis, 528 P.2d 117 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). “]: “(1) Conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are completed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom he conspired.”
State v. Coleman, 883 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” ORS 161.465(1). “Prior bad acts” evidence is admissible if (1) it is independéntly relevant for a noncharacter purpose; (2) the proponent offers sufficient proof that the act or acts were committed; and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by…”
State v. Watson, 43 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 161.465(1) provides: “Conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are completed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom the defendant conspired.”
State v. Roper, 578 P.2d 479 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “” ORS 161.465(1). Although it is not specifically applicable here, the language of ORS 135.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.465(1) — 5 cases
State v. Huffman, 672 P.2d 1351 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “Davis, 19 Or App 446, 450 , 528 P2d 117 (1974); ORS 161.465(1). 4 Although we would not infer a perpetual conspiracy, see State v.”
State v. Roper, 595 P.2d 1247 (Or. 1979). “When the legislature has specifically indicated the limited purpose of thus defining the temporal duration of a conspiracy, we will not extend ORS 161.465 to a different issue. In contrast to its earlier ruling, the court subsequently instructed the jury: “The crime of…”
State v. Coleman, 883 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” ORS 161.465(1). “Prior bad acts” evidence is admissible if (1) it is independéntly relevant for a noncharacter purpose; (2) the proponent offers sufficient proof that the act or acts were committed; and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by…”
State v. Watson, 43 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 161.465(1) provides: “Conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are completed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom the defendant conspired.”
State v. Roper, 578 P.2d 479 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “” ORS 161.465(1). Although it is not specifically applicable here, the language of ORS 135.”
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.