164.125 Theft
of services. (1) A
person commits the crime of theft of services if:
(a) With intent
to avoid payment therefor, the person obtains services that are available only
for compensation, by force, threat, deception or other means to avoid payment
for the services; or
(b) Having
control over the disposition of labor or of business, commercial or industrial
equipment or facilities of another, the person uses or diverts to the use of
the person or a third person such labor, equipment or facilities with intent to
derive for the person or the third person a commercial benefit to which the
person or the third person is not entitled.
(2) As used in
this section, “services” includes, but is not limited to, labor, professional
services, toll facilities, transportation, communications service,
entertainment, the supplying of food, lodging or other accommodations in
hotels, restaurants or elsewhere, the supplying of equipment for use, and the
supplying of commodities of a public utility nature such as gas, electricity,
steam and water. “Communication service” includes, but is not limited to, use
of telephone, computer and cable television systems.
(3) Absconding
without payment or offer to pay for hotel, restaurant or other services for
which compensation is customarily paid immediately upon the receiving of them
is prima facie evidence that the services were obtained with intent to avoid
payment therefor. Obtaining the use of any communication system the use of
which is available only for compensation, including but not limited to
telephone, computer and cable television systems, or obtaining the use of any
services of a public utility nature, without payment or offer to pay for such
use is prima facie evidence that the obtaining of the use of such system or the
use of such services was gained with intent to avoid payment therefor.
(4) The value of
single theft transactions may be added together if the thefts were committed:
(a) Against
multiple victims by a similar means within a 30-day period; or
(b) Against the
same victim, or two or more persons who are joint owners, within a 180-day
period.
(5) Theft of
services is:
(a) A Class C
misdemeanor if the aggregate total value of services that are the subject of
the theft is less than $100;
(b) A Class A
misdemeanor if the aggregate total value of services that are the subject of
the theft is $100 or more and less than $1,000;
(c) A Class C
felony if the aggregate total value of services that are the subject of the
theft is $1,000 or more; and
(d) A Class B
felony if the aggregate total value of services that are the subject of the
theft is $10,000 or more. [1971 c.743 §133; 1973 c.133 §1; 1985 c.537 §1; 1987
c.907 §8; 1993 c.680 §21; 2009 c.16 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
State v. Cassidy, 545 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Cassidy, 545 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 35× “Thus, defendant argued that because R did not “oper- ate her [Elkton property] primarily for commercial gain” she was “not entitled to protection under ORS 164.125,” and 3 ORS 105.850 provides that as used in certain statutes that concern a right of action when a city or mass…”
State v. Simmons, 516 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “As to each count, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a necessary element of the crime.”
State v. Herfurth, 388 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Prior to the criminal case, the third party brought a successful civil action against the defendant for breach of contract.”
State v. Miranda, 417 P.3d 480 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“045, and not theft of services under ORS 164.125. *485 Consequently, the court reasoned, the evidence that defendant may have committed theft of utilities would not permit the jury to find that defendant had committed theft as charged: "Now, what has caused me way too much time…”
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 P.2d 1109 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Defendant appeals from convictions for theft of services in the first degree, ORS 164.125, and conspiracy to commit theft of services in the first degree.”
State v. Thomas, 780 P.2d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “…the constitutionality of ORS 161.565(2) or reach her other assignments of error. [4] ORS 164.043-ORS 164.095; ORS 164.125.”
State v. Smith, 288 P.3d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“085 (theft by deception); ORS 164.125 (theft of services). Neither the text of ORS 164.”
State v. Waechter, 986 P.2d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “ORS 164.125. We reverse. On April 29, 1996, defendant was charged with theft of services by making unauthorized long distance telephone calls on his roommate's telephone.”
State v. Bledsoe, 487 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“245, and theft of services, ORS 164.125. The trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on the charge of second- degree criminal trespass, and the jury convicted defendant on all other counts.”
Briggs v. State, 704 A.2d 904 (Md. 1998).
“1997); Or.Rev.Stat §§ 164.125, 164.377 (1995); 18 Pa.”
State v. Leonard, 707 P.2d 650 (Utah 1985).
“1-23-03 (1976); Or.Rev. Stat. § 164.125(3) (1983); Pa.Stat.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(1) — 4 cases
State v. Simmons, 516 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“As to each count, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a necessary element of the crime.”
State v. Cassidy, 545 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Thus, defendant argued that because R did not “oper- ate her [Elkton property] primarily for commercial gain” she was “not entitled to protection under ORS 164.125,” and 3 ORS 105.850 provides that as used in certain statutes that concern a right of action when a city or mass…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(1)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Simmons, 516 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“As to each count, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a necessary element of the crime.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Cassidy, 545 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Thus, defendant argued that because R did not “oper- ate her [Elkton property] primarily for commercial gain” she was “not entitled to protection under ORS 164.125,” and 3 ORS 105.850 provides that as used in certain statutes that concern a right of action when a city or mass…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(2) — 3 cases
State v. Cassidy, 545 P.3d 203 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Thus, defendant argued that because R did not “oper- ate her [Elkton property] primarily for commercial gain” she was “not entitled to protection under ORS 164.125,” and 3 ORS 105.850 provides that as used in certain statutes that concern a right of action when a city or mass…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(3) — 1 case
State v. Leonard, 707 P.2d 650 (Utah 1985).
“1-23-03 (1976); Or.Rev. Stat. § 164.125(3) (1983); Pa.Stat.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(5)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Simmons, 516 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“As to each count, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a necessary element of the crime.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.125(l)(a) — 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.