164.085 Theft
by deception. (1)
A person, who obtains property of another thereby, commits theft by deception
when, with intent to defraud, the person:
(a) Creates or
confirms another’s false impression of law, value, intention or other state of
mind that the actor does not believe to be true;
(b) Fails to
correct a false impression that the person previously created or confirmed;
(c) Prevents
another from acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property
involved;
(d) Sells or
otherwise transfers or encumbers property, failing to disclose a lien, adverse
claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether such
impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or
(e) Promises
performance that the person does not intend to perform or knows will not be
performed.
(2) “Deception”
does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or
representations unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.
For purposes of this subsection, the theft of a companion animal, as defined in
ORS 164.055, or a captive wild animal is a matter having pecuniary
significance.
(3) In a
prosecution for theft by deception, the defendant’s intention or belief that a
promise would not be performed may not be established by or inferred from the
fact alone that such promise was not performed.
(4) In a
prosecution for theft by deception committed by means of a bad check, it is
prima facie evidence of knowledge that the check or order would not be honored
if:
(a) The drawer
has no account with the drawee at the time the check or order is drawn or
uttered; or
(b) Payment is
refused by the drawee for lack of funds, upon presentation within 30 days after
the date of utterance, and the drawer fails to make good within 10 days after
receiving notice of refusal. [1971 c.743 §128; 1991 c.837 §10; 2007 c.71 §49]
164.090 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case:
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “015(4); ORS 164.085. Defendant appeals those convictions and raises three assignments of error.”
Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff argues that he produced evidence of federal wire and/or mail fraud, 18 USC §§ 1341 , 1343, in addition to theft by deception, ORS 164.085, theft by receiving, ORS 164.”
State v. Bostwick, 512 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 23× “In his combined first, second, and third assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on all three counts of simulating legal process, because none of the documents in question falsely simulated any…”
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009).
“, Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 164.085, 164.057 (1991); but see, e.”
Great Am. Ins. v. Linderman, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Or. 2015).
· cites it 7× “Great American’s third claim is titled “Theft by deception pursuant to ORS § 164.085.” Id. at ¶¶ 6.1-6.5. The Lindermans contend that criminal charges cannot be brought in this proceeding and that Great American cannot state a claim under the criminal code.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Morin, 878 P.2d 393 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 4× “” The trial panel concluded that the accused violated DR 1-102(A)(2) because he committed theft by deception, as defined in ORS 164.085. 6 The accused offers two reasons why *558 he did not commit the crime of theft by deception.”
State v. Cox, 82 P.3d 619 (Or. 2003).
· cites it 2× “075; or “(4) Commits theft by deception, as provided in ORS 164.085; or “(5) Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.”
Germaine Music v. Universal Songs of Polygram, 275 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D. Nev. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 2C:20-4 (2003), Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.085 (2001). However, a private party cannot sue for damages pursuant to a criminal statute.”
State v. Jim, 508 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 3× “075; or “(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085; or “(5) Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.”
State v. Smith, 288 P.3d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “075; “(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085; or “(5) Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.”
Wieber v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 220 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs assert that "FedEx's actions amount to aggravated theft by deception," ORS 164.085, and that that offense is punishable as a Class B felony under ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(1) — 10 cases
Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Plaintiff argues that he produced evidence of federal wire and/or mail fraud, 18 USC §§ 1341 , 1343, in addition to theft by deception, ORS 164.085, theft by receiving, ORS 164.”
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“015(4); ORS 164.085. Defendant appeals those convictions and raises three assignments of error.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Bostwick, 512 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“In his combined first, second, and third assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on all three counts of simulating legal process, because none of the documents in question falsely simulated any…”
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“015(4); ORS 164.085. Defendant appeals those convictions and raises three assignments of error.”
Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Plaintiff argues that he produced evidence of federal wire and/or mail fraud, 18 USC §§ 1341 , 1343, in addition to theft by deception, ORS 164.085, theft by receiving, ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(1)(a)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Bostwick, 512 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“In his combined first, second, and third assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on all three counts of simulating legal process, because none of the documents in question falsely simulated any…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Bostwick, 512 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“In his combined first, second, and third assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on all three counts of simulating legal process, because none of the documents in question falsely simulated any…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(3) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(a) — 1 case
State v. Bostwick, 512 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“In his combined first, second, and third assignments of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on all three counts of simulating legal process, because none of the documents in question falsely simulated any…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Gray, 401 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“015(4); ORS 164.085. Defendant appeals those convictions and raises three assignments of error.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.085(l)(a)(b) — 1 case
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.