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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.285 (2026)

Defense to coercion

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

      163.285 Defense to coercion. In any prosecution for coercion committed by instilling in the victim a fear that the victim or another person would be charged with a crime, it is a defense that the defendant reasonably believed the threatened charge to be true and that the sole purpose of the defendant was to compel or induce the victim to take reasonable action to make good the wrong which was the subject of the threatened charge. [1971 c.743 §103]

 

      163.290 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      163.300 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

SEXUAL OFFENSES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1974–2006 · 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 2× “[31] ORS 163.285: "In any prosecution for coercion committed by instilling in the victim a fear that he or another person would be charged with a crime, it is a defense that the defendant reasonably believed the threatened charge to be true and that his sole purpose was to…”
Smithson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 664 P.2d 1119 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Such conduct, without more, is not socially intolerable; in fact, if defendant reasonably believed the threatened charge to be true, that would be a defense (ORS 163.285 3 ) to a charge of coercion under ORS 163.”
State v. McCoy, 521 P.2d 1074 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “105 which makes retraction a "defense" to perjury or false swearing, ORS 163.285 which describes a "defense" to coercion, and ORS 163.”
State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 897 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “225(2); ORS 163.285; ORS 163.325(2); ORS 163.555(2)(b); ORS 163.”
State v. Flajole, 129 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “225 (1971) (same in prosecution for second-degree kidnapping); ORS 163.285 (1971) (same in prosecution for coercion); ORS 163.”
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.