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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.265 (2026)

Bribing a witness

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      162.265 Bribing a witness. (1) A person commits the crime of bribing a witness if the person offers, confers or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon a witness in any official proceeding, or a person the person believes may be called as a witness, with the intent that:

      (a) The testimony of the person as a witness will thereby be influenced; or

      (b) The person will avoid legal process summoning the person to testify; or

      (c) The person will be absent from any official proceeding to which the person has been legally summoned.

      (2) Bribing a witness is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §201]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Bailey, 213 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bailey, 213 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “Defendant points to ORS 162.265, defining the crime of bribing a witness, and ORS 162.”
State v. Jenkins, 383 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “As defendant recounts, when revising the criminal code, the legislature enacted three statutes concerning improper conduct involving witnesses: ORS 162.265, which prohibits bribing a witness; ORS 162.”
State v. Martin, 769 P.2d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “015, bribing a witness (Count II), ORS 162.265, and tampering with a witness (Count III), ORS 162.”
State v. Maney, 688 P.2d 63 (Or. 1984). “” ORS 162.265,162.275 and 162.285 prohibit bribing or tamperng with a “witness in any official proceeding, or a person he believes may be called as a witness.”
In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Martin, 775 P.2d 842 (Or. 1989). “015, bribing a witness, ORS 162.265, and tampering with a witness, ORS 162.”
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1525 (D. Or. 1990). “h of the Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims: Attempt by Wang through the use of interstate wire transmissions on or about August 2, 1988, when litigation was contemplated, to induce Jerry Coon, an agent of Richmark, to offer false testimony in exchange for payments…”
State v. Hedrick, 559 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 162.265. The only question raised is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct on entrapment.”
State v. Irby, 545 P.2d 1399 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “375, and for bribing a witness, ORS 162.265. Defendant with clear understanding of his rights and in proper form waived jury trial on both charges and requested court trial, which was granted.”
State v. Bogosian, 347 Or. App. 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “285 (Counts 1 and 3) and bribing a witness, ORS 162.265 (Counts 2 and 4). At sentencing, the court merged the guilty verdict on Count 2 with the guilty verdict on Count 1 and merged the guilty verdict on Count 4 with the guilty verdict on Count 3.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.265(1): 2 cases
State v. Bailey, 213 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2009). “Defendant points to ORS 162.265, defining the crime of bribing a witness, and ORS 162.”
State v. Martin, 769 P.2d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “015, bribing a witness (Count II), ORS 162.265, and tampering with a witness (Count III), ORS 162.”
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.