Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165 (2026)
Bias crime in the first degree
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
166.165 Bias crime in the first degree. (1) A person commits a bias crime in the first degree if the person:
(a) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another person because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin;
(b) With criminal negligence causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin; or
(c) Intentionally, because of the person’s perception of another person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin, places another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
(2) A bias crime in the first degree is a Class C felony. [1981 c.785 §2; 1983 c.521 §2; 1989 c.1029 §2; 1993 c.332 §1; 1995 c.79 §53; 1997 c.249 §50; 2007 c.100 §19; 2011 c.421 §2; 2019 c.553 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: State v. Plowman, 838 P.2d 558 (Or. 1992).
State v. Plowman, 838 P.2d 558 (Or. 1992). “Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution Defendant next argues that ORS 166.”
State v. Hendrix, 813 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “A statement, uttered by an assailant before, during or after an attack in which physical injury is inflicted on a victim, will often provide evidence of the assailant’s unlawful motive under ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A). However, an assailant’s statement is not the exclusive means by…”
Huffman & Wright Logging Co. v. Wade, 857 P.2d 101 (Or. 1993). “Applying those principles, this court held that ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A) [8] is a law in the third of the described categories and is not *108 facially invalid under Article I, section 8.”
State v. Stoneman, 888 P.2d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Plowman, supra , the Supreme Court held that ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A), the statute creating and defining the crime of intimidation in the first degree, did not violate Article I, section 8.”
Multnomah Cnty. v. Mehrwein, 462 P.3d 706 (Or. 2020). “’ ” Plowman, 314 Or at 159 (quot- ing ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A) (1991)). The defendant had, during an assault, exclaimed racial slurs at the victims and loudly yelled “white power” or “white pride.”
Moser v. Frohnmayer, 845 P.2d 1284 (Or. 1993). “" ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A). The statute involved in Plowman was upheld because the law did not punish the expression of opinion; it "proscribes a forbidden effect.”
State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “[5] Former ORS 166.165, provided in part: "(1) Two or more persons acting together commit the crime of intimidation in the first degree, if the persons: "(a)(A) Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause physical injury to another because of their perception of that person's…”
State v. Frost, 340 Or. App. 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In this consolidated criminal appeal from three judgments of conviction, defendant raises two assignments of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for bias crime in the first degree, ORS 166.165, and the portion of his sentences requiring him to pay per diem fees.”
Nielson v. Legacy Health Sys., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Or. 2001). “ORS 166.165 states that a person commits intimidation in the first degree if he or she acts in concert with two or more persons to: (a)(A) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause physical injury to another person because of the actors’ perception of that person’s race,…”
Williams v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp., 958 P.2d 202 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “Mitchell, 508 US 476, 488 , 113 S Ct 2194 , 124 L Ed 2d 436 (1993) (discussing government’s compelling interest *692 in such laws); ORS 166.165 (Oregon’s prohibition on bias-motivated intimidation).”
People v. M.S., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5161 (Cal. 1995). “§3631 [prohibiting interference with any person engaged in housing-related activities because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin]; Ore. Rev. Stat. § 166.165 [prohibiting intimidation because of actor’s perception of another’s…”
Blume v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 963 P.2d 700 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “275(1), and intimidation in the first degree, ORS 166.165, both felonies, carry a maximum fine of $100,000 for individuals and $50,000 for corporations, and that menacing, ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Frost, 340 Or. App. 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In this consolidated criminal appeal from three judgments of conviction, defendant raises two assignments of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for bias crime in the first degree, ORS 166.165, and the portion of his sentences requiring him to pay per diem fees.”
State v. Frost, 340 Or. App. 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165(1)(a)(A) — 8 cases
State v. Stoneman, 888 P.2d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Plowman, supra , the Supreme Court held that ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A), the statute creating and defining the crime of intimidation in the first degree, did not violate Article I, section 8.”
Multnomah Cnty. v. Mehrwein, 462 P.3d 706 (Or. 2020). “’ ” Plowman, 314 Or at 159 (quot- ing ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A) (1991)). The defendant had, during an assault, exclaimed racial slurs at the victims and loudly yelled “white power” or “white pride.”
Huffman & Wright Logging Co. v. Wade, 857 P.2d 101 (Or. 1993). “Applying those principles, this court held that ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A) [8] is a law in the third of the described categories and is not *108 facially invalid under Article I, section 8.”
Moser v. Frohnmayer, 845 P.2d 1284 (Or. 1993). “" ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A). The statute involved in Plowman was upheld because the law did not punish the expression of opinion; it "proscribes a forbidden effect.”
State v. Hendrix, 813 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “A statement, uttered by an assailant before, during or after an attack in which physical injury is inflicted on a victim, will often provide evidence of the assailant’s unlawful motive under ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A). However, an assailant’s statement is not the exclusive means by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Nebel, 238 P.3d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165(2) — 1 case
State v. Plowman, 838 P.2d 558 (Or. 1992). “Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution Defendant next argues that ORS 166.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165(2)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Plowman, 838 P.2d 558 (Or. 1992). “Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution Defendant next argues that ORS 166.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165(l)(a)(A) — 7 cases
State v. Plowman, 838 P.2d 558 (Or. 1992). “Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution Defendant next argues that ORS 166.”
State v. Hendrix, 813 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “A statement, uttered by an assailant before, during or after an attack in which physical injury is inflicted on a victim, will often provide evidence of the assailant’s unlawful motive under ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A). However, an assailant’s statement is not the exclusive means by…”
Huffman & Wright Logging Co. v. Wade, 857 P.2d 101 (Or. 1993). “Applying those principles, this court held that ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A) [8] is a law in the third of the described categories and is not *108 facially invalid under Article I, section 8.”
Moser v. Frohnmayer, 845 P.2d 1284 (Or. 1993). “" ORS 166.165(1)(a)(A). The statute involved in Plowman was upheld because the law did not punish the expression of opinion; it "proscribes a forbidden effect.”
State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “[5] Former ORS 166.165, provided in part: "(1) Two or more persons acting together commit the crime of intimidation in the first degree, if the persons: "(a)(A) Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause physical injury to another because of their perception of that person's…”
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.