163.750
Violating a court’s stalking protective order. (1) A person commits the crime of
violating a court’s stalking protective order if:
(a) The person
has been served with a court’s stalking protective order as provided in ORS
30.866 or 163.738, or service was waived under ORS 163.741 because the person
appeared before the court;
(b) The person,
subsequent to the service of the order or the waiver of service, has engaged
intentionally, knowingly or recklessly in conduct prohibited by the order; and
(c) If the
conduct is prohibited contact as defined in ORS 163.730 (3)(d), (e), (f), (h)
or (i), the subsequent conduct has created reasonable apprehension regarding
the personal safety of a person protected by the order.
(2)(a) Violating
a court’s stalking protective order is a Class A misdemeanor.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, violating a court’s stalking
protective order 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 that order is not the same as the person
protected by the order at issue in the current offense; or
(C) At least one
instance of unwanted contact is the commission of the following against the
person protected by the order:
(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
violating a court’s stalking protective order is a Class C felony pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this subsection, violating a court’s stalking protective order
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 §8; 1995 c.353 §7; 2024 c.90 §3]
Note: See note under 163.730.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011).
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011).
· cites it 43× “This case involves the intersection of free speech rights under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, and the crime of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750. Defendant violated the terms of a stalking protective order by contacting the victim through a…”
State v. Ryan, 239 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 42× “Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.”
State v. Rolfe, 468 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 10× “Defendant testified that she sent the message before receiving notice, and defense counsel argued in closing that the jury should acquit for that reason.”
State v. Meek, 338 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 14× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for violating a stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750, and an adjudication finding defendant in contempt of court, ORS 33.”
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Defendant appeals from his convictions following a jury trial on two felony counts of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750, 1 and one felony count of stalking, ORS 163.”
State v. Norris-Romine, 894 P.2d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “747 and ORS 163.750. In each case, the ground for dismissal was that the statutory definition of the phrase “without legitimate purpose,” as a component of the crime of stalking, is unconstitutionally vague.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “, ORS 163.750(1) (defining crime of "violating a court's stalking protective order" as including violation of order issued under ORS 30.”
State v. Stroud, 428 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“In the underlying criminal case, on December 24, 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(a), and the trial court sentenced her to 60 months of probation and 45 days in jail as a condition of her probation.”
State v. Pumphrey, 338 P.3d 819 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of violating a court’s stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750, and the trial court entered convictions on that plea.”
State v. Orton, 904 P.2d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 15× “ORS 163.750 (since amended by Or Laws 1995, ch 353, § 7).”
State v. Miller, 413 P.3d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“*355 This is a consolidated appeal of two judgments of conviction for multiple counts of violation of a court's stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750. In case number A160387, defendant was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of violating a court's SPO.”
State v. Mosley, 480 P.3d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Tillamook County Circuit Court 18CR32534; A170593 480 P3d 1023 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of violating a stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750. He assigns error to the trial court’s exclu- sion of evidence regarding the dismissal of a different SPO…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(1) — 5 cases
State v. Meek, 338 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for violating a stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750, and an adjudication finding defendant in contempt of court, ORS 33.”
Hanzo v. dePARRIE, 953 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“, ORS 163.750(1) (defining crime of "violating a court's stalking protective order" as including violation of order issued under ORS 30.”
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011).
“This case involves the intersection of free speech rights under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, and the crime of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750. Defendant violated the terms of a stalking protective order by contacting the victim through a…”
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Defendant appeals from his convictions following a jury trial on two felony counts of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750, 1 and one felony count of stalking, ORS 163.”
State v. Orton, 904 P.2d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“ORS 163.750 (since amended by Or Laws 1995, ch 353, § 7).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011).
“This case involves the intersection of free speech rights under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, and the crime of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750. Defendant violated the terms of a stalking protective order by contacting the victim through a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Rolfe, 468 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Defendant testified that she sent the message before receiving notice, and defense counsel argued in closing that the jury should acquit for that reason.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Ryan, 239 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.”
State v. Ryan, 261 P.3d 1189 (Or. 2011).
“This case involves the intersection of free speech rights under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, and the crime of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750. Defendant violated the terms of a stalking protective order by contacting the victim through a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(2) — 1 case
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Defendant appeals from his convictions following a jury trial on two felony counts of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750, 1 and one felony count of stalking, ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Stroud, 428 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“In the underlying criminal case, on December 24, 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(a), and the trial court sentenced her to 60 months of probation and 45 days in jail as a condition of her probation.”
State v. Rolfe, 468 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Defendant testified that she sent the message before receiving notice, and defense counsel argued in closing that the jury should acquit for that reason.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(2)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Defendant appeals from his convictions following a jury trial on two felony counts of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750, 1 and one felony count of stalking, ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.750(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Meek, 338 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for violating a stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750, and an adjudication finding defendant in contempt of court, ORS 33.”
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.