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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275 (2026)

Coercion

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

      163.275 Coercion. (1) A person commits the crime of coercion when the person compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which the other person has a legal right to abstain, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which the other person has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the other person a fear that, if the other person refrains from the conduct compelled or induced or engages in conduct contrary to the compulsion or inducement, the actor or another will:

      (a) Unlawfully cause physical injury to some person;

      (b) Unlawfully cause physical injury to some animal;

      (c) Unlawfully cause damage to property;

      (d) Engage in conduct constituting a crime;

      (e) Falsely accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person;

      (f) Cause or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some person’s business, except that such a threat is not deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;

      (g) Testify falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or

      (h) Unlawfully use or abuse the person’s position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.

      (2) Coercion is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §102; 1983 c.546 §4; 1985 c.338 §1; 2007 c.71 §45; 2015 c.751 §1]

 

      163.280 [Amended by 1957 c.640 §2; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 157 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). · cites it 68× “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Or. 1996). · cites it 16× “§ 1951 , and Oregon’s coercion statute, ORS 163.275. 2. Analysis Allegations of fraud must be stated with particularity.”
State v. Robertson, 635 P.2d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 20× “" ORS 163.275 provides in relevant part: "(1) A person commits the crime of Coercion when he compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which he has a legal right to abstain, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by…”
United States v. Dunlap, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Or. 2016). · cites it 9× “The Ninth Circuit has previously determined that ORS 163.275(1) is divisible. 13 United States v.”
State v. Paige, 638 P.2d 1173 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 12× “The opinion in Robertson made clear that the basis of its holding that the coercion statute, ORS 163.275, is constitutional was its finding that it is not a statute regulating speech.”
State v. Hendricks, 359 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “2 Defendant was also charged with a single count of coercion, ORS 163.275 (Count 7); the indictment did not specify the predicate conduct for that charge.”
State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× ““Public servant” ORS 163.275 provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of coercion when the person compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which the other person has a legal right to abstain * * * by means of instilling in the other person a fear…”
Mellerio v. Nooth, 379 P.3d 560 (Malheur Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 4× “He contends, inter alia, that the post-conviction court erred in rejecting his claim of constitutionally inadequate representation based on criminal trial counsel’s failure to request a “Boots” jury concurrence instruction 1 relating to four counts of coercion, ORS 163.275, on…”
State v. Powe, 497 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR32507; A172584 497 P3d 793 Defendant was convicted of coercion constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.275 (Count 1), and fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.”
State v. Phillips, 135 P.3d 461 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “575; and two counts of coercion, ORS 163.275. He asserts three assignments of error: (1) The trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to the coercion charges; (2) the trial court erred in ordering him to complete a sex offender evaluation…”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “In summarizing its decision in Robertson on the constitutionality of the coercion statute, ORS 163.275 (1981), the court explained: "To recapitulate, we believe that the constitutional right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever guaranteed in article I,…”
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). · cites it 2× “Therefore Article I, section 8 would not foreclose a statute, otherwise in valid form, that made it criminal to compel another to commit an offense by threats or other verbal means under circumstances in which the demand is meant to be followed and the compulsion is…”
Show all 157 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(1) — 16 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Hendricks, 359 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “2 Defendant was also charged with a single count of coercion, ORS 163.275 (Count 7); the indictment did not specify the predicate conduct for that charge.”
State v. Powe, 497 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR32507; A172584 497 P3d 793 Defendant was convicted of coercion constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.275 (Count 1), and fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.”
State v. Pedersen, 255 P.3d 556 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
United States v. Dunlap, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Or. 2016). “The Ninth Circuit has previously determined that ORS 163.275(1) is divisible. 13 United States v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(1)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Stone, 735 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Torregano, 333 Or. App. 781 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State Ex Rel Juv. Dept. v. George, 862 P.2d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Reed, 863 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(1)(e) — 6 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Robertson, 635 P.2d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “" ORS 163.275 provides in relevant part: "(1) A person commits the crime of Coercion when he compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which he has a legal right to abstain, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by…”
State v. Paige, 638 P.2d 1173 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “The opinion in Robertson made clear that the basis of its holding that the coercion statute, ORS 163.275, is constitutional was its finding that it is not a statute regulating speech.”
State v. Anderson, 641 P.2d 40 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Paige, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(1)(f) — 1 case
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(2) — 6 cases
State v. Mitchell, 235 P.3d 725 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Brown, 335 Or. App. 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Brown, 335 Or. App. 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Blitch, 475 P.3d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Bisby, 157 P.3d 262 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(c) — 2 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Stone, 735 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(l)(a) — 7 cases
United States v. Dunlap, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Or. 2016). “The Ninth Circuit has previously determined that ORS 163.275(1) is divisible. 13 United States v.”
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Or. 1996). “§ 1951 , and Oregon’s coercion statute, ORS 163.275. 2. Analysis Allegations of fraud must be stated with particularity.”
State v. Stone, 735 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Gipson, 227 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(l)(e) — 4 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). “The circuit court in each case entered an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the coercion count of the indictment, which was based "on the *572 ground that the facts therein do not state a crime for the reason that the same and ORS 163.275 are unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Robertson, 635 P.2d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “" ORS 163.275 provides in relevant part: "(1) A person commits the crime of Coercion when he compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which he has a legal right to abstain, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by…”
Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Or. 1996). “§ 1951 , and Oregon’s coercion statute, ORS 163.275. 2. Analysis Allegations of fraud must be stated with particularity.”
State v. Paige, 638 P.2d 1173 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “The opinion in Robertson made clear that the basis of its holding that the coercion statute, ORS 163.275, is constitutional was its finding that it is not a statute regulating speech.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.275(l)(g) — 1 case
State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). ““Public servant” ORS 163.275 provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of coercion when the person compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which the other person has a legal right to abstain * * * by means of instilling in the other person a fear…”
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.