161.566
Misdemeanor treated as violation; prosecuting attorney’s election. (1) Except as provided in
subsection (4) of this section, a prosecuting attorney may elect to treat any
misdemeanor as a Class A violation. The election must be made by the
prosecuting attorney orally or in writing. If no election is made, the case
shall proceed as a misdemeanor.
(2) If a
prosecuting attorney elects to treat a misdemeanor as a Class A violation under
this section, the court shall amend the accusatory instrument to reflect the
charged offense as a Class A violation and clearly denominate the offense as a
Class A violation in any judgment entered in the matter. Notwithstanding ORS
153.021, the fine that a court may impose upon conviction of a violation under
this section may not:
(a) Be less than
the presumptive fine established by ORS 153.019 for a Class A violation; or
(b) Exceed the
maximum fine established by ORS 153.018 for a Class A violation.
(3) If a
prosecuting attorney elects to treat a misdemeanor as a Class A violation under
this section, and the defendant fails to make any required appearance in the
matter, the court may enter a default judgment against the defendant in the
manner provided by ORS 153.102. Notwithstanding ORS 153.021, the fine that the
court may impose under a default judgment entered pursuant to ORS 153.102 may
not:
(a) Be less than
the presumptive fine established by ORS 153.019 for a Class A violation; or
(b) Exceed the
maximum fine established by ORS 153.018 for a Class A violation.
(4) A prosecuting
attorney may not elect to treat misdemeanors created under ORS 811.540 or
813.010 as violations under the provisions of this section.
(5) The election
provided for in this section may be made by a city attorney acting as
prosecuting attorney in the case of municipal ordinance offenses, a county
counsel acting as prosecuting attorney under a county charter in the case of
county ordinance offenses, and the Attorney General acting as prosecuting
attorney in those criminal actions or proceedings within the jurisdiction of
the Attorney General. [1999 c.1051 §47; 2003 c.737 §89; 2011 c.597 §16; 2012
c.82 §2; 2025 c.375 §5]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case:
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013).
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 15× “565 and replaced it with ORS 161.566, which remains in effect today.”
State v. Whitten, 379 P.3d 707 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 161.566(1) (“[A] prosecuting attorney may elect to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
State v. Page, 113 P.3d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 13× “That result is made possible by ORS 161.566 (2001), which allows the district attorney “to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA 2004).
“3 Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.566 (1999). Such a prosecutorial election was made in the respondent’s case.”
State v. Fuller, 311 P.3d 861 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 8× “ORS 161.566 provides, in part, that, except for misdemeanors created under the vehicle code, “(1) * * * a prosecuting attorney may elect to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
State v. Swanson, 266 P.3d 45 (Or. 2011).
““(d) The prosecuting attorney has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.566. “(e) The court has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS…”
State v. Rich, 180 P.3d 744 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“” The state elected to treat the case as a violation, as authorized by ORS 161.566. Before trial, defendant filed a “Motion to make more definite and certain, or in the alternative motion in limine.”
State v. Fuller, 287 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “565 and enacting ORS 161.566 in its stead. See Or Laws 1999, ch 1051, §§ 47, 49.”
State v. Robison, 120 P.3d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“ORS 161.566. At the close of the evidence, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that PCC 14A.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison, 333 Or. App. 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See ORS 161.566 (outlining procedure for the prosecuting attorney to elect to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation).”
State v. Coughlin, 311 P.3d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
““(d) The prosecuting attorney has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.566. “(e) The court has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.566(1) — 11 cases
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013).
“565 and replaced it with ORS 161.566, which remains in effect today.”
State v. Whitten, 379 P.3d 707 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“See ORS 161.566(1) (“[A] prosecuting attorney may elect to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
State v. Page, 113 P.3d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“That result is made possible by ORS 161.566 (2001), which allows the district attorney “to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.566(2) — 2 cases
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013).
“565 and replaced it with ORS 161.566, which remains in effect today.”
State v. Fuller, 311 P.3d 861 (Or. 2013).
“ORS 161.566 provides, in part, that, except for misdemeanors created under the vehicle code, “(1) * * * a prosecuting attorney may elect to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.566(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Fuller, 287 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“565 and enacting ORS 161.566 in its stead. See Or Laws 1999, ch 1051, §§ 47, 49.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.566(3) — 1 case
State v. Page, 113 P.3d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“That result is made possible by ORS 161.566 (2001), which allows the district attorney “to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.566(4) — 2 cases
State v. Fuller, 287 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“565 and enacting ORS 161.566 in its stead. See Or Laws 1999, ch 1051, §§ 47, 49.”
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.