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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007 (2026)

Forgery in the second degree

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

      165.007 Forgery in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of forgery in the second degree if, with intent to injure or defraud, the person:

      (a) Falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument; or

      (b) Utters a written instrument which the person knows to be forged.

      (2) Forgery in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §152]

 

      165.010 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      165.012 [1963 c.553 §1; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Kizer, 779 P.2d 604 (Or. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kizer, 779 P.2d 604 (Or. 1989). · cites it 16× “Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971 explained that ORS 165.007, defining methods of committing forgery, did not necessarily create two offenses when one makes and utters a single document.”
State v. White, 211 P.3d 248 (Or. 2009). · cites it 6× “[7] The court looked to the Commentary to ORS 165.007, which stated that the legislature had intended forgery to be "a single crime that may be committed by falsely making, completing, or altering a written instrument or by uttering a forged instrument with knowledge of its…”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “See ORS 165.007; ORS 165.013. Plaintiffs further alleged that, but for the "false, fraudulent or forged" signatures, neither measure would have qualified for the ballot.”
State v. Barrett, 10 P.3d 901 (Or. 2000). · cites it 4× “In that case, this court stated that the phrase “statutory provision” in former ORS 161.062(1) “was not defined to mean a section, subsection, or paragraph; consistent with its purpose, the term can be interpreted to mean any provision defining a ‘single crime,’ whatever visual…”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). · cites it 4× “013(l)(a)(A) defines the crime of forgery and provides: “A person commits the crime of forgery in the first degree if the person violates ORS 165.007 [a]nd the written instrument is or purports to be * * * [p]art of an issue of money * * ORS 165.”
Great Am. Ins. v. Linderman, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Or. 2015). · cites it 8× “” Or.Rev.Stat. § 165.007. Section 165.002 defines “make,” “complete,” “alter,” and “utter.”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015). · cites it 3× “ORS 165.007(l)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of second-degree forgery if, with the requisite intent, the person “[f]alsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.”
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” ORS 165.002(7) provides, in part, that, “unless the context requires otherwise *** [t] o ‘utter’ means to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another.”
State v. White, 147 P.3d 313 (Or. 2006). “The court held that, although the forgery statute, ORS 165.007, superficially appeared to contain two separate criminal prohibitions (against "making" or "uttering" a forged instrument), the accompanying legislative commentary clearly revealed a legislative intent to define a…”
State v. Funrue, 339 Or. App. 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “045 (Count 2); second-degree forgery, ORS 165.007 (Count 3); and second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.”
State v. McMillan, 111 P.3d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “013, one count of forgery in the second degree, ORS 165.007, and one count of racketeering, ORS 166.”
State v. Barrett, 958 P.2d 215 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Defendant points out that in Kizer , the Supreme Court concluded that the legislature was addressing the same legislative concern in each of the two subsections setting forth how forgery could be proven, ORS 165.007, [1] and, therefore, only one conviction could be entered.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(1) — 13 cases
State v. White, 211 P.3d 248 (Or. 2009). “[7] The court looked to the Commentary to ORS 165.007, which stated that the legislature had intended forgery to be "a single crime that may be committed by falsely making, completing, or altering a written instrument or by uttering a forged instrument with knowledge of its…”
State v. Kizer, 779 P.2d 604 (Or. 1989). “Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971 explained that ORS 165.007, defining methods of committing forgery, did not necessarily create two offenses when one makes and utters a single document.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “See ORS 165.007; ORS 165.013. Plaintiffs further alleged that, but for the "false, fraudulent or forged" signatures, neither measure would have qualified for the ballot.”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “013(l)(a)(A) defines the crime of forgery and provides: “A person commits the crime of forgery in the first degree if the person violates ORS 165.007 [a]nd the written instrument is or purports to be * * * [p]art of an issue of money * * ORS 165.”
State v. Haddon, 399 P.3d 458 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(1)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Kaino-Smith, 371 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Kizer, 779 P.2d 604 (Or. 1989). “Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971 explained that ORS 165.007, defining methods of committing forgery, did not necessarily create two offenses when one makes and utters a single document.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “See ORS 165.007; ORS 165.013. Plaintiffs further alleged that, but for the "false, fraudulent or forged" signatures, neither measure would have qualified for the ballot.”
State v. Fasasi, 553 P.3d 566 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 189 P.3d 9 (Or. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Ford, 72 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Townsend, 509 P.3d 679 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Medina (Or. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(a) — 2 cases
State v. Barrett, 10 P.3d 901 (Or. 2000). “In that case, this court stated that the phrase “statutory provision” in former ORS 161.062(1) “was not defined to mean a section, subsection, or paragraph; consistent with its purpose, the term can be interpreted to mean any provision defining a ‘single crime,’ whatever visual…”
State v. Nunn, 821 P.2d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(b) — 1 case
State v. Barrett, 10 P.3d 901 (Or. 2000). “In that case, this court stated that the phrase “statutory provision” in former ORS 161.062(1) “was not defined to mean a section, subsection, or paragraph; consistent with its purpose, the term can be interpreted to mean any provision defining a ‘single crime,’ whatever visual…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(l)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015). “ORS 165.007(l)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of second-degree forgery if, with the requisite intent, the person “[f]alsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.”
State v. Kizer, 779 P.2d 604 (Or. 1989). “Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971 explained that ORS 165.007, defining methods of committing forgery, did not necessarily create two offenses when one makes and utters a single document.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “See ORS 165.007; ORS 165.013. Plaintiffs further alleged that, but for the "false, fraudulent or forged" signatures, neither measure would have qualified for the ballot.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 189 P.3d 9 (Or. 2008).
State v. Baldwin, 138 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.007(l)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Bowen, 380 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “” ORS 165.002(7) provides, in part, that, “unless the context requires otherwise *** [t] o ‘utter’ means to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another.”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “013(l)(a)(A) defines the crime of forgery and provides: “A person commits the crime of forgery in the first degree if the person violates ORS 165.007 [a]nd the written instrument is or purports to be * * * [p]art of an issue of money * * ORS 165.”
State v. Medina, 355 P.3d 108 (Or. 2015). “ORS 165.007(l)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of second-degree forgery if, with the requisite intent, the person “[f]alsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.”
Great Am. Ins. v. Linderman, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Or. 2015). “” Or.Rev.Stat. § 165.007. Section 165.002 defines “make,” “complete,” “alter,” and “utter.”
State v. Baldwin, 138 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
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.