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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732 (2026)

Stalking

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

      163.732 Stalking. (1) A person commits the crime of stalking if:

      (a) The person knowingly alarms or coerces another person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household by engaging in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person;

      (b) It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and

      (c) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.

      (2)(a) Stalking is a Class A misdemeanor.

      (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, stalking is a Class C felony if:

      (A) The person has a prior conviction for:

      (i) Stalking, or an equivalent crime in another jurisdiction; or

      (ii) Violating a court’s stalking protective order, or an equivalent crime in another jurisdiction;

      (B) The person is the respondent for an active protection order in any jurisdiction that restrains the person from stalking, intimidating, molesting or menacing another person, and the person protected by the order is not the victim of the current offense; or

      (C) At least one instance of unwanted contact is the commission of the following against the victim:

      (i) A felony;

      (ii) Unlawful dissemination of an intimate image under ORS 163.472; or

      (iii) Unlawful use of a global positioning system device under ORS 163.715.

      (c) When stalking is a Class C felony pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, stalking shall be classified as a person felony and as crime category 8 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [1993 c.626 §2; 1995 c.353 §2; 2024 c.90 §2]

 

      Note: See note under 163.730.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999). · cites it 32× “The issue in this criminal case is whether Oregon’s stalking statute, ORS 163.732, is overbroad in violation of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 25× “730, which applies equally to civil and criminal stalking proceedings, provides, in part: "As used in ORS 30.”
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 17× “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
Delgado v. Souders, 46 P.3d 729 (Or. 2002). · cites it 7× “Rangel, 328 Or 294 , 977 P2d 379 (1999), which upheld ORS 163.732, the criminal anti-stalking statute, against a similar challenge, disposed of his overbreadth claim here.”
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011). · cites it 14× “2d 379 (1999) (imposing a similar limitation on the crime of stalking under ORS 163.732, when communications formed the factual basis for that crime).”
State v. Hejazi, 524 P.3d 534 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “190, and stalking, ORS 163.732, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal on both charges.”
State v. Ryan, 239 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “866 as well as to ORS 163.732 and ORS 163.750, provides, in part: "(3) `Contact' includes but is not limited to: "* * * * * "(d) Sending or making written or electronic communications in any form to the other person; "(e) Speaking with the other person by any means; "(f)…”
House v. Hicks, 179 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “" We do not decide whether that statute applies here, whether criminal stalking conduct occurred under ORS 163.732, or whether ORS 163.732 is a "law * * * pertaining to safety * * * in the place of employment.”
State v. Rangel, 934 P.2d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “Defendant was charged with stalking, ORS 163.732, by “unlawfully and knowingly alarm [ing] [the victim] by coming to her place of employment and threatening her” on repeated occasions.”
State v. Martin, 501 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “866—the civil analog to ORS 163.732— “[t]he victim’s situation includes all of the circumstances of the parties’ relationship.”
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “In this case, defendant was charged with misdemeanor stalking under ORS 163.732, which is classified as a “person Class A misdemeanor.”
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “750, 1 and one felony count of stalking, ORS 163.732. 2 Defendant assigns seven errors to various trial court rulings, but only five assignments of error merit discussion.”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(1) — 15 cases
State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999). “The issue in this criminal case is whether Oregon’s stalking statute, ORS 163.732, is overbroad in violation of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “730, which applies equally to civil and criminal stalking proceedings, provides, in part: "As used in ORS 30.”
Delgado v. Souders, 46 P.3d 729 (Or. 2002). “Rangel, 328 Or 294 , 977 P2d 379 (1999), which upheld ORS 163.732, the criminal anti-stalking statute, against a similar challenge, disposed of his overbreadth claim here.”
State v. Ryan, 239 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “866 as well as to ORS 163.732 and ORS 163.750, provides, in part: "(3) `Contact' includes but is not limited to: "* * * * * "(d) Sending or making written or electronic communications in any form to the other person; "(e) Speaking with the other person by any means; "(f)…”
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011). “2d 379 (1999) (imposing a similar limitation on the crime of stalking under ORS 163.732, when communications formed the factual basis for that crime).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
State v. Martin, 501 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “866—the civil analog to ORS 163.732— “[t]he victim’s situation includes all of the circumstances of the parties’ relationship.”
State v. Sierzega, 237 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Odneal, 469 P.3d 857 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(1)(b) — 5 cases
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “730, which applies equally to civil and criminal stalking proceedings, provides, in part: "As used in ORS 30.”
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
State v. Martin, 501 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “866—the civil analog to ORS 163.732— “[t]he victim’s situation includes all of the circumstances of the parties’ relationship.”
State v. Schoen, 211 P.3d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Holbrook, 348 Or. App. 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(1)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011). “2d 379 (1999) (imposing a similar limitation on the crime of stalking under ORS 163.732, when communications formed the factual basis for that crime).”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “730, which applies equally to civil and criminal stalking proceedings, provides, in part: "As used in ORS 30.”
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
State v. Martin, 501 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “866—the civil analog to ORS 163.732— “[t]he victim’s situation includes all of the circumstances of the parties’ relationship.”
State v. Rangel, 934 P.2d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “Defendant was charged with stalking, ORS 163.732, by “unlawfully and knowingly alarm [ing] [the victim] by coming to her place of employment and threatening her” on repeated occasions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(2) — 3 cases
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “750, 1 and one felony count of stalking, ORS 163.732. 2 Defendant assigns seven errors to various trial court rulings, but only five assignments of error merit discussion.”
State v. Luster, 350 P.3d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Hurita, 366 P.3d 754 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(2)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011). “In this case, defendant was charged with misdemeanor stalking under ORS 163.732, which is classified as a “person Class A misdemeanor.”
State v. Martin, 501 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “866—the civil analog to ORS 163.732— “[t]he victim’s situation includes all of the circumstances of the parties’ relationship.”
State v. Turner, 344 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Turner, 344 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Smith, 337 Or. App. 817 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(2)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Chesnut, 388 P.3d 1237 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Capri, 273 P.3d 290 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Turner, 344 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Jordan, 136 P.3d 1198 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Turner, 344 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(3) — 2 cases
State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999). “The issue in this criminal case is whether Oregon’s stalking statute, ORS 163.732, is overbroad in violation of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(b) — 1 case
State v. Holbrook, 348 Or. App. 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999). “The issue in this criminal case is whether Oregon’s stalking statute, ORS 163.732, is overbroad in violation of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Delgado v. Souders, 46 P.3d 729 (Or. 2002). “Rangel, 328 Or 294 , 977 P2d 379 (1999), which upheld ORS 163.732, the criminal anti-stalking statute, against a similar challenge, disposed of his overbreadth claim here.”
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Rangel, 977 P.2d 379 (Or. 1999). “The issue in this criminal case is whether Oregon’s stalking statute, ORS 163.732, is overbroad in violation of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “730, which applies equally to civil and criminal stalking proceedings, provides, in part: "As used in ORS 30.”
State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 163.732. He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the court’s refusal to give one of his requested jury instructions.”
State v. Schoen, 211 P.3d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Shook v. Ackert, 952 P.2d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(l)(c) — 1 case
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “730, which applies equally to civil and criminal stalking proceedings, provides, in part: "As used in ORS 30.”
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.