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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.257 (2026)

Custodial interference in the first degree

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

      163.257 Custodial interference in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of custodial interference in the first degree if the person violates ORS 163.245 and:

      (a) Causes the person taken, enticed or kept from the lawful custodian or in violation of a valid joint custody order to be removed from the state; or

      (b) Exposes that person to a substantial risk of illness or physical injury.

      (2) Expenses incurred by a lawful custodial parent or a parent enforcing a valid joint custody order in locating and regaining physical custody of the person taken, enticed or kept in violation of this section are “economic damages” for purposes of restitution under ORS 137.103 to 137.109.

      (3) Custodial interference in the first degree is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §101; 1981 c.774 §2; 1987 c.795 §8; 2005 c.564 §7]

 

      163.260 [Amended by 1955 c.366 §1; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Maidi, 537 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Maidi, 537 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 2× “257(2) (1993) ("Expenses incurred by a lawful custodial parent * * * in locating and regaining physical custody of the person taken, enticed or kept in violation of this section [custodial interference] are "pecuniary damages" for purposes of restitution * * *.”
State v. Gerlach, 300 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “Rose, 75 Or App 379 , 706 P2d 583 (1985), rev den, 300 Or 477 (1986), we concluded that first-degree custodial interference, ORS 163.257, was a continuing offense. In that case, the defendant was the father of the victim.”
State v. Easton, 582 P.2d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Defendant was charged with custodial interference in the first degree, ORS 163.257, 1 tried by a jury, and convicted.”
State v. Dirks, 581 P.2d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “ORS 163.257. 1 He was sentenced on both counts with the terms to run consecutively.”
State v. Haddon, 399 P.3d 458 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Such is the case when a lesser-included offense is textually nested in a greater offense, as with ORS 163.257(1), where a person commits first-degree custodial interference if the person violates ORS 163.”
State v. West, 688 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “In seeking reversal of her conviction for custodial interference in the first degree, ORS 163.257, defendant assigns as error the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State Ex Rel Johnson v. Bail, 938 P.2d 209 (Or. 1997). “, ORS 163.257 (custodial interference in the first degree); ORS 163.”
State v. Burris, 348 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Compare with ORS 163.257(1) (a person commits first-degree custodial interference “if the person violates ORS 163.”
State v. Rose, 706 P.2d 583 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “ORS 163.257. 1 We affirm. Amy Gabrielle Rose was born in 1970.”
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Gutman, 21 P.3d 101 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “245; ORS 163.257.” Defendants respond that the elements of false imprisonment do not match the elements of the crime of custodial interference.”
State v. Fitouri, 893 P.2d 556 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “ORS 163.257. He assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Christine, 93 P.3d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Defendants were also convicted of custodial interference in the first degree, ORS 163.257, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, ORS 164.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.257(1) — 2 cases
State v. Haddon, 399 P.3d 458 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Such is the case when a lesser-included offense is textually nested in a greater offense, as with ORS 163.257(1), where a person commits first-degree custodial interference if the person violates ORS 163.”
State v. Burris, 348 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Compare with ORS 163.257(1) (a person commits first-degree custodial interference “if the person violates ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.257(1)(a) — 2 cases
Johns (D. Or. 2025).
Young (D. Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.257(2) — 1 case
State v. Maidi, 537 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995). “257(2) (1993) ("Expenses incurred by a lawful custodial parent * * * in locating and regaining physical custody of the person taken, enticed or kept in violation of this section [custodial interference] are "pecuniary damages" for purposes of restitution * * *.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.257(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Gerlach, 300 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Rose, 75 Or App 379 , 706 P2d 583 (1985), rev den, 300 Or 477 (1986), we concluded that first-degree custodial interference, ORS 163.257, was a continuing offense. In that case, the defendant was the father of the victim.”
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.