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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686 (2026)

Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree

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

      163.686 Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree if the person:

      (a)(A)(i) Knowingly possesses or controls, or knowingly accesses with the intent to view, a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of the person or another person; or

      (ii) Knowingly pays, exchanges or gives anything of value to obtain or view a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of the person or another person; and

      (B) Knows or is aware of and consciously disregards the fact that creation of the visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involved child abuse; or

      (b)(A) Knowingly pays, exchanges or gives anything of value to observe sexually explicit conduct by a child or knowingly observes, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person, sexually explicit conduct by a child; and

      (B) Knows or is aware of and consciously disregards the fact that the conduct constitutes child abuse.

      (2) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1995 c.768 §3; 2011 c.515 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). · cites it 69× “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). · cites it 53× “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
State v. McNutt, 463 P.3d 563 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 16× “684 and ORS 163.686. Held: The affidavit included three sets of facts that collectively established probable cause that the files on a computer in defendant’s home contained child pornography: (1) the names of two specific files downloaded from the computer implied that both…”
Hardin v. Popoff, 379 P.3d 593 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 10× “Petitioner pleaded guilty to four counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in violation of ORS 163.686 (2007), amended by Or Laws 2011, ch 515, § 4, 1 based on allegations that he had “possess[ed]” or “controlled]” images of child pornography.”
Marsh v. People, 389 P.3d 100 (Colo. 2017). “323 (A)(3) (West 2016) (“[pjossess or view”); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 163.686 (l)(a)(A)(i) (West 2016) (“[kjnowingly possesses or controls, or knowingly accesses with the intent to view”); 18 Pa.”
State v. Dunlap, 168 P.3d 295 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “After a trial to the court, defendant was convicted of two counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree, ORS 163.686, and was sentenced to five years’ probation.”
State v. Bray, 160 P.3d 983 (Or. 2007). · cites it 3× “684, and 11 counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.686. Each count of the first-degree offense alleged that defendant knowingly had possessed a “visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child with intent to print or display on the…”
State v. Ritchie, 208 P.3d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “ORS 163.686. In support of his first and fourth assignments of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgments of acquittal.”
State v. Tilden, 288 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “A jury found defendant guilty of 101 counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse under ORS 163.686 (2005), 1 based on sexually explicit images of children that were found on his home computer.”
State v. Cannon, 450 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “684; ORS 163.686. The charges stemmed from seven images found on defendant’s cell phone and one image discovered on defen- dant’s laptop computer in the course of a forensic exam- ination of those devices authorized by a search warrant.”
State v. Cannon, 537 P.3d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “684, two counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse (Counts 2 and 4), ORS 163.686, and one count of bribe giving (Count 11), ORS 162.”
State v. Dulfu, 426 P.3d 641 (Or. 2018). · cites it 2× “684, and one count of encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree (ECSA II), ORS 163.686, for a total of 30 counts. (For example, Count 1, which charged defendant with ECSA I, and Count 16, which charged defendant with ECSA II, were based on the same file.”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(1) — 6 cases
Hardin v. Popoff, 379 P.3d 593 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “Petitioner pleaded guilty to four counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in violation of ORS 163.686 (2007), amended by Or Laws 2011, ch 515, § 4, 1 based on allegations that he had “possess[ed]” or “controlled]” images of child pornography.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
State v. Navaie, 362 P.3d 710 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Ritchie, 208 P.3d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 163.686. In support of his first and fourth assignments of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgments of acquittal.”
State v. Tilden, 288 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “A jury found defendant guilty of 101 counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse under ORS 163.686 (2005), 1 based on sexually explicit images of children that were found on his home computer.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
State v. Cannon, 537 P.3d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “684, two counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse (Counts 2 and 4), ORS 163.686, and one count of bribe giving (Count 11), ORS 162.”
State v. Cannon (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(1)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(1)(a)(A)(i) — 5 cases
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
State v. Dulfu, 426 P.3d 641 (Or. 2018). “684, and one count of encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree (ECSA II), ORS 163.686, for a total of 30 counts. (For example, Count 1, which charged defendant with ECSA I, and Count 16, which charged defendant with ECSA II, were based on the same file.”
State v. Tilden, 288 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “A jury found defendant guilty of 101 counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse under ORS 163.686 (2005), 1 based on sexually explicit images of children that were found on his home computer.”
State v. Ritchie, 208 P.3d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 163.686. In support of his first and fourth assignments of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgments of acquittal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(1)(a)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(1)(a)(B) — 1 case
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(l)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(l)(a)(A)(i) — 4 cases
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
State v. Navaie, 362 P.3d 710 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Mross, 360 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(l)(a)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
State v. Ritchie, 248 P.3d 405 (Or. 2011). “Like the defendant in Barger , defendant was convicted of multiple (in defendant's case, 20) counts of Encouraging Child Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, based on the presence of sexually explicit digital images of children on the hard drives of his computers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.686(l)(a)(B) — 1 case
State v. Barger, 247 P.3d 309 (Or. 2011). “[2] Based on Williams's findings, defendant was charged with eight counts of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, ORS 163.686, by possessing or controlling a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child.”
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.