Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.017 (2026)
Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
165.017 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, the person possesses a forged instrument.
(2) Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §154]
165.020 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Thorpe, 175 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Thorpe, 175 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, ORS 165.017. He assigns error to the trial court’s order of restitution, arguing that the court did not have authority to order restitution for three…”
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010). “013 (forgery in the first degree) and ORS 165.017 (criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree) with ORS 165.”
State v. Funrue, 339 Or. App. 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “007 (Count 3); and second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.017 (Count 4). For conduct related to his theft and forgery convictions, defen- dant was also found in violation of probation regarding two prior cases and in contempt for violating a…”
State v. Funrue, 339 Or. App. 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “007 (Count 3); and second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.017 (Count 4). For conduct related to his theft and forgery convictions, defen- dant was also found in violation of probation regarding two prior cases and in contempt for violating a…”
State v. Corbett, 196 P.3d 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “967, and possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.017. She argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence that the police obtained while she was detained illegally.”
State v. Eaton, 571 P.2d 173 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “” 2 Defendant’s challenge to evidence about the false identification is based upon the fact that possession of a forged instrument is a crime, see ORS 165.017, and therefore the evidence related to uncharged "other crimes.”
State v. Ojeda-Inda, 42 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 165.017. He assigns error to the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that there was no evidence that the instrument that he possessed was “forged” within the meaning of the statute.”
State v. Becker, 197 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “760 notice to the district attorney on April 8, stating that he was serving a three-month sentence in Washington County and requesting trial within 90 days on the Lane County charges.”
State v. Bacon, 242 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “884, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, ORS 165.017, and one count of identity theft, ORS 165.”
State v. Riley, 546 P.2d 1097 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “ORS 165.017 provides: "(1) A person commits the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree if, knowing it to be forged and with intent to utter same, he possesses a forged instrument.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.017(1) — 2 cases
State v. Thorpe, 175 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, ORS 165.017. He assigns error to the trial court’s order of restitution, arguing that the court did not have authority to order restitution for three…”
State v. Ojeda-Inda, 42 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 165.017. He assigns error to the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that there was no evidence that the instrument that he possessed was “forged” within the meaning of the statute.”
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.