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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013 (2026)

Forgery in the first degree

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

      165.013 Forgery in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of forgery in the first degree if the person violates ORS 165.007:

      (a) And the written instrument is or purports to be any of the following:

      (A) Part of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps, or other valuable instruments issued by a government or governmental agency;

      (B) Part of an issue of stock, bonds or other instruments representing interests in or claims against any property or person;

      (C) A deed, will, codicil, contract or assignment;

      (D) A check for $1,000 or more, a credit card purchase slip for $1,000 or more, or a combination of checks and credit card purchase slips that, in the aggregate, total $1,000 or more, or any other commercial instrument or other document that does or may evidence, create, transfer, alter, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status; or

      (E) A public record; or

      (b) By falsely making, completing or altering, or by uttering, at least 15 retail sales receipts, Universal Product Code labels, EAN-8 labels or EAN-13 labels or a combination of at least 15 retail sales receipts, Universal Product Code labels, EAN-8 labels or EAN-13 labels.

      (2) The value of single check or credit card transactions may be added together under subsection (1)(a)(D) of this section if the transactions were committed:

      (a) Against multiple victims within a 30-day period; or

      (b) Against the same victim within a 180-day period.

      (3) Forgery in the first degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §153; 1993 c.680 §25; 2005 c.761 §1]

 

      165.015 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “022, which provides that a person commits that crime “if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013.” The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). · cites it 7× “007 (forgery in the second degree) with ORS 165.013 (forgery in the first degree) and ORS 165.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “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. Fisher, 574 P.2d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “Defendant pled guilty to four violations of ORS 165.013, forgery in the first degree.”
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 17× “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
House v. Hicks, 179 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Although the defendant's alleged forgery was a crime (first-degree forgery under ORS 165.013), we determined that it was not "the type of conduct that constitutes an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable behavior.”
State v. Rainoldi, 268 P.3d 568 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “In 2004, defendant was convicted of two offenses: forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.013, and identity theft, ORS 165.”
State v. Tarrence, 985 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 17× “ORS 165.013. We reverse the conviction of Forgery I and, on stipulation by defendant that her actions constitute Forgery II, a misdemeanor, we remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction for Forgery II.”
State v. Brown, 355 P.3d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “055, first-degree forgery, ORS 165.013, and first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.”
State v. Kaino-Smith, 371 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “057, 1 and seven counts of forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.013. 2 The jury convicted defendant of all charges.”
State v. Osborn, 499 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “On appeal, she argues, among other contentions, that the trial court erred when it applied an incorrect legal standard when ordering that she be phys- ically restrained in court.”
State v. Hamilton, 634 P.2d 208 (Or. 1981). · cites it 5× “Defendant was convicted of five counts of forgery in the first degree (ORS 165.013) and one count of theft in the first degree (ORS 164.”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(1) — 10 cases
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “007 (forgery in the second degree) with ORS 165.013 (forgery in the first degree) and ORS 165.”
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “022, which provides that a person commits that crime “if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013.” The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.”
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
State v. Gonzalez-Galindo, 932 P.2d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Tarrence, 985 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 165.013. We reverse the conviction of Forgery I and, on stipulation by defendant that her actions constitute Forgery II, a misdemeanor, we remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction for Forgery II.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jackson, 495 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(1)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(1)(a)(D) — 1 case
State v. Kaino-Smith, 371 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “057, 1 and seven counts of forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.013. 2 The jury convicted defendant of all charges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “022, which provides that a person commits that crime “if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013.” The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.”
State v. Riley, 546 P.2d 1097 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “022, which provides that a person commits that crime “if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013.” The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.”
State v. Ford, 72 P.3d 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(2) — 1 case
State v. Norman, 692 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(3) — 2 cases
State v. Rainoldi, 268 P.3d 568 (Or. 2011). “In 2004, defendant was convicted of two offenses: forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.013, and identity theft, ORS 165.”
State v. Brown, 355 P.3d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “055, first-degree forgery, ORS 165.013, and first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “007 (forgery in the second degree) with ORS 165.013 (forgery in the first degree) and ORS 165.”
State v. Tarrence, 985 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 165.013. We reverse the conviction of Forgery I and, on stipulation by defendant that her actions constitute Forgery II, a misdemeanor, we remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction for Forgery II.”
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(l)(a)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “007 (forgery in the second degree) with ORS 165.013 (forgery in the first degree) and ORS 165.”
State v. Torrez, 314 P.3d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(l)(a)(D) — 2 cases
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
State v. Baldwin, 138 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(l)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “022, which provides that a person commits that crime “if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013.” The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.”
State v. Jackson, 582 P.2d 837 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Tarrence, 985 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 165.013. We reverse the conviction of Forgery I and, on stipulation by defendant that her actions constitute Forgery II, a misdemeanor, we remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction for Forgery II.”
State v. Nunn, 821 P.2d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Blake, 760 P.2d 1369 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.013(l)(d) — 4 cases
State v. Mayorga, 62 P.3d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “022, which provides that a person commits that crime “if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument of the kind specified in ORS 165.013.” The forged instruments specified in ORS 165.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leonhardt, 930 P.2d 844 (Or. 1997).
State v. Gonzalez-Aguillar, 403 P.3d 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the documents at issue in this case, we conclude that neither instrument satisfies ORS 165.013 *415 (l)(a)(A). First, to qualify under subparagraph (A), the instrument in question must have “inherent pecuniary value.”
State v. Tarrence, 985 P.2d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 165.013. We reverse the conviction of Forgery I and, on stipulation by defendant that her actions constitute Forgery II, a misdemeanor, we remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction for Forgery II.”
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.