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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.431 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 163.431 to 163.434

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

      163.431 Definitions for ORS 163.431 to 163.434. As used in ORS 163.431 to 163.434:

      (1) “Child” means a person who the defendant reasonably believes to be under 16 years of age.

      (2) “Online communication” means communication that occurs via telephone text messaging, electronic mail, personal or instant messaging, chat rooms, bulletin boards or any other transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, cellular system, electromagnetic system or other similar means.

      (3) “Sexual contact” has the meaning given that term in ORS 163.305.

      (4) “Sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given that term in ORS 163.665.

      (5) “Solicit” means to invite, request, seduce, lure, entice, persuade, prevail upon, coax, coerce or attempt to do so. [2007 c.876 §1; 2009 c.517 §1]

 

      Note: 163.431 to 163.434 were added to and made a part of ORS chapter 163 by legislative action but were not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: State v. Lewis, 423 P.3d 129 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lewis, 423 P.3d 129 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" ORS 163.431(2). Burroughs testified that "GFE" stood for "girlfriend experience," which he understood to mean "that the girl is available to kiss and to provide oral sex without a condom.”
State v. Street, 505 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 163.431(5) defines “solicit” to mean “to invite, request, seduce, lure, entice, prevail upon, coax, coerce or attempt to do so.”
State v. Sewell, 307 P.3d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “410(2); and one count of contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor, ORS 163.431. He argues that the trial court should have excluded, under OEC 403, the victim’s testimony that defendant refused to use a condom during four of their sexual encounters.”
State v. Bonine, 326 Or. App. 662 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Defendant’s strongest argument regarding the pen- alties for other, related crimes is that first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, carries a 75-month mandatory mini- mum prison sentence, ORS 137.”
State v. Quinn-Ward, 341 Or. App. 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “He argues that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he “solicited” a child to engage in sexual conduct, as the legislature defined that term in ORS 163.”
State v. Quinn-Ward, 341 Or. App. 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “He argues that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he “solicited” a child to engage in sexual conduct, as the legislature defined that term in ORS 163.431(5). The state responds that the trial court did…”
State v. Scott, 344 Or. App. 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” ORS 163.431; see also ORS 166.065 (2013), amended by Or Laws 2017, ch 430, § 1, Or Laws 2019, ch 304, § 3, Or Laws 2022, ch 114, § 2 (defining “electronic threat” for purposes of the crime of harassment as “a threat conveyed by electronic mail, the Internet, a telephone text…”
State v. Fitzhugh (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “” ORS 163.431 contains relevant definitions: “(1) ‘Child’ means a person who the defendant reason- ably believes to be under 16 years of age.”
State v. Gale, 446 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" ORS 163.431(1). Defendant argues that no reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he "reasonably believed" that the victim in this case was under 16.”
State v. Williams, 334 Or. App. 173 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” ORS 163.431(1). In the instant case, defendant was arrested after exchanging messages and attempting to meet with someone he believed was a 16-year-old girl, but in fact was a detec- tive.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.431(1) — 3 cases
State v. Gale, 446 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “" ORS 163.431(1). Defendant argues that no reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he "reasonably believed" that the victim in this case was under 16.”
State v. Williams, 334 Or. App. 173 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” ORS 163.431(1). In the instant case, defendant was arrested after exchanging messages and attempting to meet with someone he believed was a 16-year-old girl, but in fact was a detec- tive.”
State v. Fitzhugh (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “” ORS 163.431 contains relevant definitions: “(1) ‘Child’ means a person who the defendant reason- ably believes to be under 16 years of age.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.431(2) — 2 cases
State v. Lewis, 423 P.3d 129 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" ORS 163.431(2). Burroughs testified that "GFE" stood for "girlfriend experience," which he understood to mean "that the girl is available to kiss and to provide oral sex without a condom.”
State v. Fitzhugh (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “” ORS 163.431 contains relevant definitions: “(1) ‘Child’ means a person who the defendant reason- ably believes to be under 16 years of age.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.431(5) — 4 cases
State v. Lewis, 423 P.3d 129 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" ORS 163.431(2). Burroughs testified that "GFE" stood for "girlfriend experience," which he understood to mean "that the girl is available to kiss and to provide oral sex without a condom.”
State v. Street, 505 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 163.431(5) defines “solicit” to mean “to invite, request, seduce, lure, entice, prevail upon, coax, coerce or attempt to do so.”
State v. Quinn-Ward, 341 Or. App. 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “He argues that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he “solicited” a child to engage in sexual conduct, as the legislature defined that term in ORS 163.”
State v. Quinn-Ward, 341 Or. App. 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “He argues that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he “solicited” a child to engage in sexual conduct, as the legislature defined that term in ORS 163.431(5). The state responds that the trial court did…”
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.