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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235 (2026)

Kidnapping in the first degree

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

      163.235 Kidnapping in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if the person violates ORS 163.225 with any of the following purposes:

      (a) To compel any person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom;

      (b) To hold the victim as a shield or hostage;

      (c) To cause physical injury to the victim;

      (d) To terrorize the victim or another person; or

      (e) To further the commission or attempted commission of any of the following crimes against the victim:

      (A) Rape in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.375 (1)(b);

      (B) Sodomy in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.405 (1)(b); or

      (C) Unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.411 (1)(b).

      (2) Kidnapping in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §99; 2005 c.22 §112; 2009 c.660 §43]

 

      163.240 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 179 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Murray, 136 P.3d 10 (Or. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Murray, 136 P.3d 10 (Or. 2006). · cites it 8× “e and final draft commentaries, but the drafters added the following paragraph: "`The proposed draft solves this problem [of excluding abductions which are incidental to or an integral part of the commission of an independent crime] by strictly limiting kidnapping in the first…”
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). · cites it 8× “375; kidnapping in the first degree, ORS 163.235; and three counts of sodomy in the first degree, ORS 163.”
State v. Soto, 551 P.3d 893 (Or. 2024). · cites it 8× “First, defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235, on the theory that he had moved the victim “from one place to another” for purposes of that offense when he carried her from the entryway to a bedroom and then to the attached bathroom, where the other…”
State v. Reyes-Castro, 511 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9× “In her first and second assign- ments of error on appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA), contending that there was insufficient evidence that she aided and abetted her codefendant in the commission of a kid- napping.”
State v. Walch, 213 P.3d 1201 (Or. 2009). · cites it 10× “[1] Defendant appealed, arguing again that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a kidnapping conviction. Specifically, he argued that no reasonable factfinder could have found that he had moved the victim "from one place to another," as required by ORS 163.”
State v. Brown, 800 P.2d 259 (Or. 1990). · cites it 3× “225, 3 and kidnapping in the first degree, ORS 163.235. 4 After the jury answered in the affirmative the three penalty phase questions put to it on the aggravated murder count, the *350 court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced defendant to death under ORS 163.”
State v. Sierra, 254 P.3d 149 (Or. 2010). · cites it 6× “225, and his single conviction for the offense of kidnapping in the first degree, ORS 163.235. 1 The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s convictions.”
State v. Valladares-Juarez, 184 P.3d 1131 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred when it did not merge the two first-degree kidnapping convictions into a single conviction.”
State v. Parkins, 211 P.3d 262 (Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “ORS 163.235(1) defines that crime: "A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if the person violates ORS 163.”
State v. Odnorozhenko, 197 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “225(l)(a); ORS 163.235. They also assign error to the court’s denial of their motion to exclude the testimony of a rebuttal witness as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation; its failure to merge their first-degree kidnapping convictions; and its imposition of partially…”
State v. Gerlach, 300 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “In this criminal case, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of 10 crimes, including two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235, arguing that the trial court erred in holding that the antimerger statute, ORS 161.”
State v. Miles, 533 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “405 (Counts 7 and 15); two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235 (Counts 8 and 13); one count of second-degree assault, ORS 163.”
Show all 179 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(1) — 25 cases
State v. Murray, 136 P.3d 10 (Or. 2006). “e and final draft commentaries, but the drafters added the following paragraph: "`The proposed draft solves this problem [of excluding abductions which are incidental to or an integral part of the commission of an independent crime] by strictly limiting kidnapping in the first…”
State v. Parkins, 211 P.3d 262 (Or. 2009). “ORS 163.235(1) defines that crime: "A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if the person violates ORS 163.”
State v. Walch, 213 P.3d 1201 (Or. 2009). “[1] Defendant appealed, arguing again that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a kidnapping conviction. Specifically, he argued that no reasonable factfinder could have found that he had moved the victim "from one place to another," as required by ORS 163.”
State v. Hessel, 844 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Acremant, 108 P.3d 1139 (Or. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Glaspey, 100 P.3d 730 (Or. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(1)(c) — 14 cases
State v. Soto, 551 P.3d 893 (Or. 2024). “First, defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235, on the theory that he had moved the victim “from one place to another” for purposes of that offense when he carried her from the entryway to a bedroom and then to the attached bathroom, where the other…”
State v. Walch, 213 P.3d 1201 (Or. 2009). “[1] Defendant appealed, arguing again that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a kidnapping conviction. Specifically, he argued that no reasonable factfinder could have found that he had moved the victim "from one place to another," as required by ORS 163.”
State v. Williams, 828 P.2d 1006 (Or. 1992).
State v. Odnorozhenko, 197 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “225(l)(a); ORS 163.235. They also assign error to the court’s denial of their motion to exclude the testimony of a rebuttal witness as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation; its failure to merge their first-degree kidnapping convictions; and its imposition of partially…”
State v. Reyes-Castro, 511 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “In her first and second assign- ments of error on appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA), contending that there was insufficient evidence that she aided and abetted her codefendant in the commission of a kid- napping.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(1)(d) — 8 cases
State v. Odnorozhenko, 197 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “225(l)(a); ORS 163.235. They also assign error to the court’s denial of their motion to exclude the testimony of a rebuttal witness as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation; its failure to merge their first-degree kidnapping convictions; and its imposition of partially…”
State v. Reyes-Castro, 511 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “In her first and second assign- ments of error on appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA), contending that there was insufficient evidence that she aided and abetted her codefendant in the commission of a kid- napping.”
State v. Miles, 533 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “405 (Counts 7 and 15); two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235 (Counts 8 and 13); one count of second-degree assault, ORS 163.”
Vasilash v. Cain, 454 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Dugan, 34 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(1)(e) — 4 cases
Baker v. Bd. of Parole, 473 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Miles, 533 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “405 (Counts 7 and 15); two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235 (Counts 8 and 13); one count of second-degree assault, ORS 163.”
State v. Sanchez, 337 Or. App. 797 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Miles (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(2) — 3 cases
State v. Soto, 551 P.3d 893 (Or. 2024). “First, defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235, on the theory that he had moved the victim “from one place to another” for purposes of that offense when he carried her from the entryway to a bedroom and then to the attached bathroom, where the other…”
State v. Washington, 337 P.3d 859 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Sierra, 206 P.3d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(l)(c) — 11 cases
State v. Valladares-Juarez, 184 P.3d 1131 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred when it did not merge the two first-degree kidnapping convictions into a single conviction.”
State v. Acremant, 108 P.3d 1139 (Or. 2005).
State v. Williams, 828 P.2d 1006 (Or. 1992).
State v. Odnorozhenko, 197 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “225(l)(a); ORS 163.235. They also assign error to the court’s denial of their motion to exclude the testimony of a rebuttal witness as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation; its failure to merge their first-degree kidnapping convictions; and its imposition of partially…”
State v. Opitz, 301 P.3d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(l)(d) — 8 cases
State v. Valladares-Juarez, 184 P.3d 1131 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred when it did not merge the two first-degree kidnapping convictions into a single conviction.”
State v. Bannister, 846 P.2d 1189 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Odnorozhenko, 197 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “225(l)(a); ORS 163.235. They also assign error to the court’s denial of their motion to exclude the testimony of a rebuttal witness as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation; its failure to merge their first-degree kidnapping convictions; and its imposition of partially…”
State v. Vaughan-France, 379 P.3d 766 (Lane Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
State v. Dugan, 34 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.235(l)(e) — 1 case
State v. Randant, 103 P.3d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
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.