Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285

Tampering with a witness

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

      162.285 Tampering with a witness. (1) A person commits the crime of tampering with a witness if:

      (a) The person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony; or

      (b) The person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness to be absent from any official proceeding to which the person has been legally summoned.

      (2) Tampering with a witness is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §203; 1979 c.231 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Bailey
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bailey (2009) or · cites it 32× “This is one of two cases that we decide today involving a defendant’s challenge to a conviction under ORS 162.285 for “tampering with a witness.”
State v. Bryan (2008) orctapp · cites it 13× “ORS 162.285. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had tampered with a “witness in an official proceeding” at the time his conduct occurred.”
State v. Jenkins (2016) orctapp · cites it 8× “Tampering with a witness is defined by ORS 162.285, which provides: “(1) A person commits the crime of tampering with a witness if: “(a) The person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness * * * in an official proceeding to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold…”
State v. Lykins (2015) or · cites it 5× “In this criminal case, defendant was convicted of the crime of tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285, after he tried to persuade his girlfriend to testify falsely in his impending trial on charges of criminal trespass and criminal negligence.”
Trevioun Lamont Cornelius Briggs v. State of Mississippi (2017) miss · cites it 8× “This is because, for purposes of subsection (a), contained in ORS 162.285, there is no express time limitation in reference to “any official proceeding.”
State v. Dikeos (2024) orctapp · cites it 3× “115, and from a judgment of dismissal for the charge of tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. On appeal, defendant has filed four briefs: an open- ing brief submitted through counsel, a pro se supplemental brief, a second supplemental brief submitted through coun- sel, and a…”
People v. Yascavage (2004) colo · cites it 2× “The result is that any request to appear may be included, whether by order of the court or request of a party, potentially even a letter or a phone call. Conversely, when called upon to interpret the Oregon statute, the Oregon court of appeals concluded that the term "legally…”
State v. Kaylor (2012) orctapp · cites it 4× “187, and tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal on the first-degree criminal mistreatment and witness tampering charges.”
State v. Bailey (2008) orctapp · cites it 9× “300; and one count of tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the witness-tampering charge.”
State v. Pervish (2005) orctapp · cites it 3× “017, and witness tampering, ORS 162.285. 1 In six assignments of error, defendant asserts that (1) the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury on each charge that 10 or more of its members must agree on a specific factual incident involving a particular…”
State v. Clardy (2017) orctapp · cites it 2× “160, and tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. In case number 12-07-33213, defendant was convicted of one count of compelling prostitution, ORS 167.”
Orlando Vasquez-Valle v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2018) ca9 · cites it 3× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285 (1). The plain text of the statute permits conviction if (1) a person induces or attempts to induce a person who is or may be called as a witness in official proceeding to offer false testimony; (2) a person induces or attempts to induce a person who is…”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(1) — 14 cases
State v. Bailey (2009) or “This is one of two cases that we decide today involving a defendant’s challenge to a conviction under ORS 162.285 for “tampering with a witness.”
Trevioun Lamont Cornelius Briggs v. State of Mississippi (2017) miss “This is because, for purposes of subsection (a), contained in ORS 162.285, there is no express time limitation in reference to “any official proceeding.”
State v. Bryan (2008) orctapp “ORS 162.285. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had tampered with a “witness in an official proceeding” at the time his conduct occurred.”
State v. Jenkins (2016) orctapp “Tampering with a witness is defined by ORS 162.285, which provides: “(1) A person commits the crime of tampering with a witness if: “(a) The person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness * * * in an official proceeding to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold…”
State v. Bailey (2008) orctapp “300; and one count of tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the witness-tampering charge.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(1)(6) — 1 case
State v. Bailey (2009) or “This is one of two cases that we decide today involving a defendant’s challenge to a conviction under ORS 162.285 for “tampering with a witness.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(1)(a) — 17 cases
State v. Bailey (2009) or “This is one of two cases that we decide today involving a defendant’s challenge to a conviction under ORS 162.285 for “tampering with a witness.”
State v. Bryan (2008) orctapp “ORS 162.285. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had tampered with a “witness in an official proceeding” at the time his conduct occurred.”
State v. Kaylor (2012) orctapp “187, and tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal on the first-degree criminal mistreatment and witness tampering charges.”
State v. Walker (2024) orctapp
Trevioun Lamont Cornelius Briggs v. State of Mississippi (2017) miss “This is because, for purposes of subsection (a), contained in ORS 162.285, there is no express time limitation in reference to “any official proceeding.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(1)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Bryan (2008) orctapp “ORS 162.285. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had tampered with a “witness in an official proceeding” at the time his conduct occurred.”
Kurtz v. Cain (2021) orctapp
State v. Walker (2024) orctapp
State v. Davis-Pinney (2018) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(2) — 1 case
State v. Diaz-Guillen (2011) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(D) — 1 case
Trevioun Lamont Cornelius Briggs v. State of Mississippi (2017) miss “This is because, for purposes of subsection (a), contained in ORS 162.285, there is no express time limitation in reference to “any official proceeding.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(l)(a) — 12 cases
State v. Bailey (2009) or “This is one of two cases that we decide today involving a defendant’s challenge to a conviction under ORS 162.285 for “tampering with a witness.”
State v. Bryan (2008) orctapp “ORS 162.285. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had tampered with a “witness in an official proceeding” at the time his conduct occurred.”
State v. Jenkins (2016) orctapp “Tampering with a witness is defined by ORS 162.285, which provides: “(1) A person commits the crime of tampering with a witness if: “(a) The person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness * * * in an official proceeding to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold…”
State v. Bailey (2008) orctapp “300; and one count of tampering with a witness, ORS 162.285. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the witness-tampering charge.”
Trevioun Lamont Cornelius Briggs v. State of Mississippi (2017) miss “This is because, for purposes of subsection (a), contained in ORS 162.285, there is no express time limitation in reference to “any official proceeding.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.285(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Campbell (2014) orctapp
State v. Pervish (2005) orctapp “017, and witness tampering, ORS 162.285. 1 In six assignments of error, defendant asserts that (1) the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury on each charge that 10 or more of its members must agree on a specific factual incident involving a particular…”
State v. Wagner (1984) orctapp
State v. Martin (1989) orctapp
State v. Tweed (2006) orctapp
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.