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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.485 (2026)

Multiple convictions barred in inchoate crimes

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

      161.485 Multiple convictions barred in inchoate crimes. (1) It is no defense to a prosecution under ORS 161.405, 161.435 or 161.450 that the offense the defendant either attempted to commit, solicited to commit or conspired to commit was actually committed pursuant to such attempt, solicitation or conspiracy.

      (2) A person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.405, 161.435 and 161.450 for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in commission of the same crime.

      (3) A person shall not be convicted on the basis of the same course of conduct of both the actual commission of an offense and an attempt to commit that offense or solicitation of that offense or conspiracy to commit that offense.

      (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to bar inclusion of multiple counts charging violation of the substantive crime and ORS 161.405, 161.435 and 161.450 in a single indictment or information, provided the penal conviction is consistent with subsections (2) and (3) of this section. [1971 c.743 §64]

 

CLASSES OF OFFENSES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). · cites it 6× “[16] (3) An offense, though neither inchoate nor necessarily included in another, may be committed as one step in the commission of another offense in the course of a single criminal episode with a single criminal objective, as defined in ORS 131.”
State v. Kimbrough, 431 P.3d 76 (Or. 2018). · cites it 6× “The relationship between those three inchoate offenses is governed in part by ORS 161.485(2), which provides that "[a] person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.”
State v. Badillo, 317 P.3d 315 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “At a hearing of the full committee, Professor Platt explained that, as an example of the type of case that ORS 161.485 would cover, an individual could be prosecuted in the same case for solicitation to a bank robbery, attempt of the same bank robbery, or conspiracy of the same…”
State v. Huddleston, 375 P.3d 583 (Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 16× “Defendant argues that, under ORS 161.485(2), he cannot be convicted of more than one count of attempted aggravated murder.”
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “[ORS 161.485] deals with the situation where the state seeks con- viction on both the inchoate and the principal offense by pro- hibiting conviction for both.”
State v. Gonzales-Gutierrez, 171 P.3d 384 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Next, defendant’s convictions for inchoate offenses meant to culminate in the commission of the same crime merge pursuant to ORS 161.485(2), which provides: *110 "A person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.”
State v. Habibullah, 373 P.3d 1259 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 4× “According to the state, ORS 161.485(2) 4 does not compel merger of Counts 5 and 6 into Count 1 "because Count 1 represents a different commission of a crime than do Counts 5 and 6.”
State v. Scott, 899 P.2d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to enter a single conviction based on the jury’s verdicts that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit tampering with a witness and tampering with a witness.”
State v. O'HARA, 955 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “067(1) but is required by ORS 161.485(3). 4 We disagree and affirm.”
State v. Johnson, 123 P.3d 304 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “In order to comply with ORS 161.485(2) (multiple convictions barred in inchoate crimes), the trial court ruled that, “Counts 3 and 5 merge into Counts 1 or 2 and Counts 4 and 6 also merge into Counts 1 or 2, resulting in only two convictions and sentences.”
State v. Cloutier, 575 P.2d 996 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “505 is ORS 161.485: ****** "(2) A person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.”
State v. Russell, 60 P.3d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “The state, commendably, points out that the trial court erred in entering judgment on all counts because, under ORS 161.485(3), a person “shall not be convicted on the basis of the same course of conduct of both the actual commission of an offense and * * * conspiracy to commit…”
Show all 55 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.485(1) — 1 case
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “[16] (3) An offense, though neither inchoate nor necessarily included in another, may be committed as one step in the commission of another offense in the course of a single criminal episode with a single criminal objective, as defined in ORS 131.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.485(2) — 15 cases
State v. Kimbrough, 431 P.3d 76 (Or. 2018). “The relationship between those three inchoate offenses is governed in part by ORS 161.485(2), which provides that "[a] person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.”
State v. Badillo, 317 P.3d 315 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “At a hearing of the full committee, Professor Platt explained that, as an example of the type of case that ORS 161.485 would cover, an individual could be prosecuted in the same case for solicitation to a bank robbery, attempt of the same bank robbery, or conspiracy of the same…”
State v. Huddleston, 375 P.3d 583 (Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “Defendant argues that, under ORS 161.485(2), he cannot be convicted of more than one count of attempted aggravated murder.”
State v. Gonzales-Gutierrez, 171 P.3d 384 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Next, defendant’s convictions for inchoate offenses meant to culminate in the commission of the same crime merge pursuant to ORS 161.485(2), which provides: *110 "A person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.”
State v. Habibullah, 373 P.3d 1259 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “According to the state, ORS 161.485(2) 4 does not compel merger of Counts 5 and 6 into Count 1 "because Count 1 represents a different commission of a crime than do Counts 5 and 6.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.485(3) — 31 cases
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “[16] (3) An offense, though neither inchoate nor necessarily included in another, may be committed as one step in the commission of another offense in the course of a single criminal episode with a single criminal objective, as defined in ORS 131.”
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “[ORS 161.485] deals with the situation where the state seeks con- viction on both the inchoate and the principal offense by pro- hibiting conviction for both.”
State v. Huddleston, 375 P.3d 583 (Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “Defendant argues that, under ORS 161.485(2), he cannot be convicted of more than one count of attempted aggravated murder.”
State v. Scott, 899 P.2d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to enter a single conviction based on the jury’s verdicts that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit tampering with a witness and tampering with a witness.”
State v. O'HARA, 955 P.2d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “067(1) but is required by ORS 161.485(3). 4 We disagree and affirm.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.485(4) — 1 case
State v. Kimbrough, 431 P.3d 76 (Or. 2018). “The relationship between those three inchoate offenses is governed in part by ORS 161.485(2), which provides that "[a] person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.”
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.