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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.434 (2026)

Provisions applicable to online sexual corruption of a child

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

      163.434 Provisions applicable to online sexual corruption of a child. (1) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for online sexual corruption of a child in the first or second degree that the person was not more than three years older than the person reasonably believed the child to be.

      (2) It is not a defense to a prosecution for online sexual corruption of a child in the first or second degree that the person was in fact communicating with a law enforcement officer, as defined in ORS 163.730, or a person working under the direction of a law enforcement officer, who is 16 years of age or older.

      (3) Online sexual corruption of a child in the first or second degree is committed in either the county in which the communication originated or the county in which the communication was received. [2007 c.876 §4]

 

      Note: See note under 163.431.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2026 · leading case: State v. Street, 505 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Street, 505 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “See ORS 163.434 (providing that it is not a defense to first- degree online sexual corruption of a child that the person was, in fact, communicating with a law enforcement officer or a person working under the direction of a law enforcement officer, who is 16 years of age or…”
State v. Fitzhugh, 350 Or. App. 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “ORS 163.434(2). By its plain text, the statute does not require that the meeting be proposed to occur at any particular time, that the child agree to the meeting, that the meeting actually occur, or that the meeting actually be possible.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.434(2): 1 case
State v. Fitzhugh, 350 Or. App. 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “ORS 163.434(2). By its plain text, the statute does not require that the meeting be proposed to occur at any particular time, that the child agree to the meeting, that the meeting actually occur, or that the meeting actually be possible.”
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.