Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 165.002 to 165.070

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

      165.002 Definitions for ORS 165.002 to 165.070. As used in ORS 165.002 to 165.027, and 165.032 to 165.070, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Written instrument” means any paper, document, instrument, article or electronic record containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, whether complete or incomplete, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording information or constituting a symbol or evidence of value, right, privilege or identification, which is capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person.

      (2) “Complete written instrument” means one which purports to be a genuine written instrument fully drawn with respect to every essential feature thereof.

      (3) “Incomplete written instrument” means one which contains some matter by way of content or authentication but which requires additional matter in order to render it a complete written instrument.

      (4) To “falsely make” a written instrument means to make or draw a complete written instrument in its entirety, or an incomplete written instrument which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker, but which is not, either because the ostensible maker is fictitious or because, if real, the ostensible maker did not authorize the making or drawing thereof.

      (5) To “falsely complete” a written instrument means to transform, by adding, inserting or changing matter, an incomplete written instrument into a complete one, without the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, so that the complete written instrument falsely appears or purports to be in all respects an authentic creation of its ostensible maker or authorized by the ostensible maker.

      (6) To “falsely alter” a written instrument means to change, without authorization by anyone entitled to grant it, a written instrument, whether complete or incomplete, by means of erasure, obliteration, deletion, insertion of new matter, transposition of matter, or in any other manner, so that the instrument so altered falsely appears or purports to be in all respects an authentic creation of its ostensible maker or authorized by the ostensible maker.

      (7) To “utter” means to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another.

      (8) “Forged instrument” means a written instrument which has been falsely made, completed or altered.

      (9) “Electronic record” has the meaning given that term in ORS 84.004.

      (10) “Signature” includes, but is not limited to, an electronic signature, as defined in ORS 84.004. [1971 c.743 §151; 2001 c.535 §27]

 

      165.005 [Amended by 1955 c.435 §1; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. White, 211 P.3d 248 (Or. 2009).
State v. White, 211 P.3d 248 (Or. 2009). · cites it 4× “" ORS 165.002(4). To "utter" a written instrument means "to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument * * * to another.”
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “4 In light of that interpretation, the court held that the trial court could not reasonably have found that the defendant “‘uttered’ either the fingerprint card or the property receipt” when he signed and completed those forms because “all the record shows is that defendant…”
Great Am. Ins. v. Linderman, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Or. 2015). · cites it 6× “Section 165.002 defines “make,” “complete,” “alter,” and “utter.”
State v. Ford, 72 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “” ORS 165.002(4) provides: “To ‘falsely make’ a written instrument means to make or draw a complete written instrument in its entirety, or an incomplete written instrument which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker, but which is not, either because the…”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015). · cites it 2× “ORS 165.002(7). It “means to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another.”
State v. Hamilton, 634 P.2d 208 (Or. 1981). · cites it 7× “” “Written instrument” is defined in ORS 165.002(1) as: “* * * any paper, document, instrument or article containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, whether complete or incomplete, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording…”
State v. Kaino-Smith, 371 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See ORS 165.002(4) (requiring, for forgery, that the falsified written instrument be unauthorized).”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “” ORS 165.002(7). It is difficult to see how one could carry out any of those latter acts without also possessing the thing to be issued, delivered, published, circulated, disseminated, transferred, or tendered.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Kirkman, 830 P.2d 206 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “” “Written instrument” is defined in ORS 165.002, which provides in part: “As used in ORS 165.”
Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Mishler, 983 P.2d 1086 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “There, the court interpreted the definition of “ostensible maker,” as used in the forgery statutes, ORS 165.002(6), to include the endorser of a check.”
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 165.002(1). Thus, there could be no commercial “document” that would not also be a commercial “instrument.”
State v. Chase, 515 P.2d 1337 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “The defendant falsely represented himself, both orally and in writing by signing the sales slip, ORS 165.002 (1), ⑥ that he was “Jim Wilson” and the brother of the owner of the credit card, Tom Wilson.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002(1) — 5 cases
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 165.002(1). Thus, there could be no commercial “document” that would not also be a commercial “instrument.”
Cruze v. Hudler, 267 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Hamilton, 634 P.2d 208 (Or. 1981). “” “Written instrument” is defined in ORS 165.002(1) as: “* * * any paper, document, instrument or article containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, whether complete or incomplete, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording…”
State v. Jackson, 582 P.2d 837 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Howard, 950 P.2d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002(4) — 8 cases
State v. White, 211 P.3d 248 (Or. 2009). “" ORS 165.002(4). To "utter" a written instrument means "to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument * * * to another.”
State v. Kaino-Smith, 371 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “See ORS 165.002(4) (requiring, for forgery, that the falsified written instrument be unauthorized).”
State v. Ford, 72 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 165.002(4) provides: “To ‘falsely make’ a written instrument means to make or draw a complete written instrument in its entirety, or an incomplete written instrument which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker, but which is not, either because the…”
Great Am. Ins. v. Linderman, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Or. 2015). “Section 165.002 defines “make,” “complete,” “alter,” and “utter.”
State v. Spence, 885 P.2d 744 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002(5) — 3 cases
State v. Riehl, 69 P.3d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Blake, 760 P.2d 1369 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Ojeda-Inda, 42 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002(6) — 3 cases
State v. Hamilton, 634 P.2d 208 (Or. 1981). “” “Written instrument” is defined in ORS 165.002(1) as: “* * * any paper, document, instrument or article containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, whether complete or incomplete, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording…”
Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Mishler, 983 P.2d 1086 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “There, the court interpreted the definition of “ostensible maker,” as used in the forgery statutes, ORS 165.002(6), to include the endorser of a check.”
State v. Ford, 72 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 165.002(4) provides: “To ‘falsely make’ a written instrument means to make or draw a complete written instrument in its entirety, or an incomplete written instrument which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker, but which is not, either because the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002(7) — 12 cases
State v. White, 211 P.3d 248 (Or. 2009). “" ORS 165.002(4). To "utter" a written instrument means "to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument * * * to another.”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015). “ORS 165.002(7). It “means to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another.”
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “4 In light of that interpretation, the court held that the trial court could not reasonably have found that the defendant “‘uttered’ either the fingerprint card or the property receipt” when he signed and completed those forms because “all the record shows is that defendant…”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “” ORS 165.002(7). It is difficult to see how one could carry out any of those latter acts without also possessing the thing to be issued, delivered, published, circulated, disseminated, transferred, or tendered.”
State v. McMillan, 111 P.3d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.002(8) — 4 cases
Great Am. Ins. v. Linderman, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Or. 2015). “Section 165.002 defines “make,” “complete,” “alter,” and “utter.”
State v. Ford, 72 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 165.002(4) provides: “To ‘falsely make’ a written instrument means to make or draw a complete written instrument in its entirety, or an incomplete written instrument which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker, but which is not, either because the…”
State v. Hamilton, 634 P.2d 208 (Or. 1981). “” “Written instrument” is defined in ORS 165.002(1) as: “* * * any paper, document, instrument or article containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, whether complete or incomplete, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording…”
State v. Ojeda-Inda, 42 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
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.