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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065 (2026)

Negotiating a bad check

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

      165.065 Negotiating a bad check. (1) A person commits the crime of negotiating a bad check if the person makes, draws or utters a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee.

      (2) For purposes of this section, unless the check or order is postdated, it is prima facie evidence of knowledge that the check or order would not be honored if:

      (a) The drawer has no account with the drawee at the time the check or order is drawn or uttered; or

      (b) Payment is refused by the drawee for lack of funds, upon presentation within 30 days after the date of utterance, and the drawer fails to make good within 10 days after receiving notice of refusal.

      (3) Negotiating a bad check is:

      (a) A Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

      (b) Enhanced from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony if at the time of sentencing it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has been convicted in this state, within the preceding five years, of the crime of negotiating a bad check or of theft by deception by means of a bad check. [1971 c.743 §161; 1979 c.594 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1985–2017 · leading case: State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 14× “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. 1 He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leisure, 113 P.3d 412 (Or. 2005). · cites it 10× “065, which provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of negotiating a bad check if the person makes, draws or utters a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee. *517 “(2) For purposes of this section,…”
Harris v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. Standards & Training, 400 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “DPSST revoked petitioner’s certification after his conviction for one count of negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065, which had been reduced to a violation.”
State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “* * * We also do not rule out regulation, enforced by criminal prosecution, directed against conduct of producers or participants in the production of sexually explicit material, nor reasonable time, place, manner regulation of the nuisance aspect of such material; or laws to…”
State v. Rice, 836 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “ORS 165.065. [1] The checks were negotiated in December, 1989, for a total amount of $814.”
State v. Jacobs, 369 P.3d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Kirkland, 241 Or App 40, 43-45 , 249 P3d 554 (2011), we considered whether, under ORS 165.065(1), the evidence was sufficient to find that the defendant drew a check knowing that the bank would not honor it.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Renshaw, 298 P.3d 1216 (Or. 2013). “Rather, the Bar alleged and this court found that Leisure had committed the crime of negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065, which the court distinguished from theft.”
State v. Short, 746 P.2d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “ORS 165.065. The issue is whether the trial court erred in giving the state’s requested jury instruction regarding an inference of knowledge that the check would be dishonored.”
State v. Earls, 267 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Following a guilty plea, defendant was convicted of 12 counts of negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065; two counts of theft in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Gammond, 704 P.2d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 165.065. Imposition of sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation for five years on the condition that she obtain a loan against her house within six months in order to pay restitution of $3,880.”
Commonwealth v. Goren, 893 N.E.2d 786 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “2 (2006); Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065 (2007); N.D. Codified Laws Ann.”
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 14× “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. [1] He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(1) — 3 cases
State v. Jacobs, 369 P.3d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Kirkland, 241 Or App 40, 43-45 , 249 P3d 554 (2011), we considered whether, under ORS 165.065(1), the evidence was sufficient to find that the defendant drew a check knowing that the bank would not honor it.”
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. 1 He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. [1] He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “* * * We also do not rule out regulation, enforced by criminal prosecution, directed against conduct of producers or participants in the production of sexually explicit material, nor reasonable time, place, manner regulation of the nuisance aspect of such material; or laws to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(2) — 2 cases
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. 1 He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. [1] He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. 1 He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Kirkland, 249 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. [1] He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(3)(a) — 2 cases
Harris v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. Standards & Training, 400 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “DPSST revoked petitioner’s certification after his conviction for one count of negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065, which had been reduced to a violation.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leisure, 113 P.3d 412 (Or. 2005). “065, which provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of negotiating a bad check if the person makes, draws or utters a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee. *517 “(2) For purposes of this section,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “* * * We also do not rule out regulation, enforced by criminal prosecution, directed against conduct of producers or participants in the production of sexually explicit material, nor reasonable time, place, manner regulation of the nuisance aspect of such material; or laws to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.065(lXa) — 1 case
City of Nyssa v. Dufloth, 57 P.3d 161 (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.