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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015 (2026)

“Theft” described

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

      164.015 “Theft” described. A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person:

      (1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof;

      (2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065;

      (3) Commits extortion as provided in ORS 164.075 by compelling or inducing another person to deliver property;

      (4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085; or

      (5) Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.095. [1971 c.743 §123; 2007 c.71 §47; 2016 c.47 §7]

 

      164.020 [Amended by 1959 c.236 §2; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 207 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Spears, 196 P.3d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Spears, 196 P.3d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 43× “The state responds that, when defendant removed five boxes of computers from inside a trailer and concealed them behind the trailer’s wheels, he “took” the property for proposes of the theft statute, ORS 164.015. As explained below, we conclude that for purposes of the crime of…”
State v. Cox, 82 P.3d 619 (Or. 2003). · cites it 24× “057 incorporates the definition of theft in ORS 164.015. 4 To determine whether defendant has been prosecuted twice for the same offense, our initial inquiry focuses on the legislature’s definition of theft in ORS 164.”
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 48× “055 which both describes the circumstances under which a "theft" will be punishable as "theft in the first degree," and incorporates the general definition of the crime of theft found in ORS 164.015. Designed to eliminate "meaningless" technical distinction which had been the…”
State v. Stowell, 466 P.3d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “In concluding that the state was correct, we first noted that ORS 164.015 incorporates the definition of theft found in ORS 164.”
State v. Jones, 196 P.3d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “055 provides that a person commits first-degree theft when the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015, and the value of the property is $750 or more.”
State v. Fujimoto, 338 P.3d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 17× “It noted that ORS 164.015 sets forth the numerous different ways that theft may be committed, summarizing the legislative history of its enactment as part of the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971.”
State v. Jim, 508 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 20× “055 reads: “(1) A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by other than extortion, he commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015; and “(a) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $200 or more; or “(b) The theft is committed during a…”
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “As relevant here, theft, defined in ORS 164.015, constitutes theft in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Shedrick, 518 P.3d 559 (Or. 2022). · cites it 4× “055(1)(a), theft in the first degree is defined, in part, as follows: “A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by means other than extortion, the person com- mits theft as defined in ORS 164.015” and the “total value of the property in a single or aggregate…”
State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “045 (2007), incorporates the definition of theft set out in ORS 164.015. See 240 Or App at 478 n 4. As relevant here, ORS 164.”
Jose Garcia-Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015 ; see also Or. Rev.”
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). · cites it 4× “225, and with attempted theft in the second degree, ORS 164.015, 164.045. Count I charged that defendant entered a dwelling, described as the Balfour residence, with the intent to commit a crime therein.”
Show all 207 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015(1) — 51 cases
State v. Spears, 196 P.3d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “The state responds that, when defendant removed five boxes of computers from inside a trailer and concealed them behind the trailer’s wheels, he “took” the property for proposes of the theft statute, ORS 164.015. As explained below, we conclude that for purposes of the crime of…”
State v. Jim, 508 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “055 reads: “(1) A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by other than extortion, he commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015; and “(a) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $200 or more; or “(b) The theft is committed during a…”
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “055 which both describes the circumstances under which a "theft" will be punishable as "theft in the first degree," and incorporates the general definition of the crime of theft found in ORS 164.015. Designed to eliminate "meaningless" technical distinction which had been the…”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Phinney, 311 P.3d 517 (Or. 2013).
State v. Dillman, 580 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015(2) — 4 cases
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “055 which both describes the circumstances under which a "theft" will be punishable as "theft in the first degree," and incorporates the general definition of the crime of theft found in ORS 164.015. Designed to eliminate "meaningless" technical distinction which had been the…”
State v. Jim, 508 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “055 reads: “(1) A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by other than extortion, he commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015; and “(a) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $200 or more; or “(b) The theft is committed during a…”
State v. Gilbert, 574 P.2d 313 (Or. 1978).
State v. Reitz, 705 P.2d 762 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015(3) — 1 case
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “055 which both describes the circumstances under which a "theft" will be punishable as "theft in the first degree," and incorporates the general definition of the crime of theft found in ORS 164.015. Designed to eliminate "meaningless" technical distinction which had been the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015(4) — 2 cases
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “As relevant here, theft, defined in ORS 164.015, constitutes theft in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “055 which both describes the circumstances under which a "theft" will be punishable as "theft in the first degree," and incorporates the general definition of the crime of theft found in ORS 164.015. Designed to eliminate "meaningless" technical distinction which had been the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.015(5) — 17 cases
State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “045 (2007), incorporates the definition of theft set out in ORS 164.015. See 240 Or App at 478 n 4. As relevant here, ORS 164.”
State v. Washington, 543 P.2d 1058 (Or. 1975).
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “055 which both describes the circumstances under which a "theft" will be punishable as "theft in the first degree," and incorporates the general definition of the crime of theft found in ORS 164.015. Designed to eliminate "meaningless" technical distinction which had been the…”
State v. Azar, 509 P.3d 668 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Farmer, 605 P.2d 716 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
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.