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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.215 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 163.215 to 163.257

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

      163.215 Definitions for ORS 163.215 to 163.257. As used in ORS 163.215 to 163.257, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Without consent” means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 16 years of age or who is otherwise incapable of giving consent, that the taking or confinement is accomplished without the consent of the lawful custodian of the person.

      (2) “Lawful custodian” means a parent, guardian or other person responsible by authority of law for the care, custody or control of another.

      (3) “Relative” means a parent, ancestor, brother, sister, uncle or aunt. [1971 c.743 §97]

 

      163.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). · cites it 5× “NOTES [1] ORS 163.215 provides in part: "As used in ORS 163.”
State v. Brown, 800 P.2d 259 (Or. 1990). “For the first time, on appeal, defendant adds that the trial court should have given the statutory definitions of “without consent,” ORS 163.215(1), and of “to enter or remain unlawfully,” ORS 164.”
State v. Nulph, 572 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “215(1) provides: "As used in ORS 163.215 to 163.257, unless the context requires otherwise: "(1) 'Without consent’ means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 16 years of age or who is otherwise incapable…”
United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 477 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2007). “2007) (same); Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 163.215, .225(1) (2005) (requiring intent to interfere substantially with the victim's liberty); R.”
State v. Amell, 736 P.2d 561 (Or. 1987). · cites it 2× “) ORS 163.215(1) states: “ ‘Without consent’ means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception * * (Emphasis added.”
State v. Epps, 585 P.2d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “" ORS 163.215(1) defines that term for purposes of the kidnapping statutes: "`Without consent' means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception * * *.”
State v. Edmiston, 602 P.2d 282 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “” ORS 163.215 provides, in part: "(1) 'Without consent’ means * * * in the case of a person under 16 years of age * * *, that the taking or confinement is accomplished without the consent of his lawful custodian.”
State v. Bodenschatz, 662 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “Nulph, 31 Or App 1155, 1165 , 572 P2d 642 (1977), rev den 282 Or 189 (1978), we held that: “ * * * To prove intent to terrorize, there must be evidence of a purpose to do more than that which is necessary to take or confine by force, threat or deception as *611 described in ORS…”
State v. Gerlach, 300 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “It requires the taking or confining of a person by force, threat, or deception, with the intent to substantially interfere with the person’s liberty, specifically, the person’s freedom of movement.”
Burcham v. Franke, 335 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “197(3) (providing that, for the purposes of the crime of hazing, the “[c]onsent of the person who is hazed is not a defense”); ORS 163.215(1) (in the context of kidnapping and related offenses, providing for an alternative definition of the term “without consent” when the victim…”
State v. Odoms, 844 P.2d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “2 ORS 163.215(1) provides: “ ‘Without consent’ means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 16 years of age or who is otherwise incapable of giving consent, that the taking or confinement is accomplished…”
State v. Thompson, 345 Or. App. 645 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “The statutory term “without consent” is defined in ORS 163.215. That definition is couched in terms of how the asportation is accomplished: “ ‘[w]ithout consent’ means that the taking * * * is accomplished by force, threat, or deception, or, in the case of a person under 16…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.215(1) — 16 cases
State v. Brown, 800 P.2d 259 (Or. 1990). “For the first time, on appeal, defendant adds that the trial court should have given the statutory definitions of “without consent,” ORS 163.215(1), and of “to enter or remain unlawfully,” ORS 164.”
State v. Nulph, 572 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “215(1) provides: "As used in ORS 163.215 to 163.257, unless the context requires otherwise: "(1) 'Without consent’ means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person under 16 years of age or who is otherwise incapable…”
State v. Amell, 736 P.2d 561 (Or. 1987). “) ORS 163.215(1) states: “ ‘Without consent’ means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception * * (Emphasis added.”
State v. Epps, 585 P.2d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “" ORS 163.215(1) defines that term for purposes of the kidnapping statutes: "`Without consent' means that the taking or confinement is accomplished by force, threat or deception * * *.”
State v. Bodenschatz, 662 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “Nulph, 31 Or App 1155, 1165 , 572 P2d 642 (1977), rev den 282 Or 189 (1978), we held that: “ * * * To prove intent to terrorize, there must be evidence of a purpose to do more than that which is necessary to take or confine by force, threat or deception as *611 described in ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.215(2) — 1 case
State v. Edmiston, 602 P.2d 282 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “” ORS 163.215 provides, in part: "(1) 'Without consent’ means * * * in the case of a person under 16 years of age * * *, that the taking or confinement is accomplished without the consent of his lawful custodian.”
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.