Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.275 (2026)
Possession of weapons by inmates of institutions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
166.275 Possession of weapons by inmates of institutions. Any person committed to any institution who, while under the jurisdiction of any institution or while being conveyed to or from any institution, possesses or carries upon the person, or has under the custody or control of the person any dangerous instrument, or any weapon including but not limited to any blackjack, slingshot, billy, sand club, metal knuckles, explosive substance, dirk, dagger, sharp instrument, pistol, revolver or other firearm without lawful authority, is guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not more than 20 years. [1953 c.533 §1; 1987 c.320 §88]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: State v. Hutchins, 164 P.3d 318 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Hutchins, 164 P.3d 318 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Defendant was convicted of violating ORS 166.275, possession of a weapon by an inmate, based on statements that he made during a disciplinary hearing at the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP).”
State v. Wolfe, 605 P.2d 1185 (Or. 1980). “ORS 166.275 makes it a felony for a person committed to a penal institution to have possession or custody of certain weapons or dangerous instruments, listed in the statute, including a "sharp instrument.”
State v. Hamilton, 64 P.3d 1215 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a weapon by an inmate of an institution, ORS 166.275. 1 He argues that he had not been “committed” to the institution as required by ORS 166.”
State v. Larsen, 606 P.2d 1159 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “155; and committed felon in possession of a weapon, ORS 166.275. The trial court sentenced defendant to a maximum life, minimum 20-year term of imprisonment for aggravated murder; 20 years maximum, 10 years minimum on each of the convictions for rape, sodomy, kidnapping and…”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Thus, in creating statutory tort liability under ORS 166.275(7)(a), the legislature would likely have relied on its understanding of the common-law concept of "legal" or "proximate cause.”
State v. Burris, 518 P.3d 891 (Or. 2022). “290,” the 1959 prefatory clause excluded one statute that would have otherwise been included: ORS 166.275, prohibiting inmates from possess- ing weapons.”
State v. Zolotoff, 320 P.3d 561 (Or. 2014). “In this case, the jury unanimously found defendant guilty of the charged offense of possession of a weapon by an inmate, ORS 166.275. 1 On appeal, the state conceded that the trial court had erred when it denied defendant’s request that it instruct the jury on the…”
State v. Cox, 98 P.3d 1103 (Or. 2004). “095(2)(b) (defining aggravated murder as intentional homicide committed by person confined in correctional institution); ORS 166.275 (prohibiting inmates from possessing weapons).”
State v. Watkins, 236 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “208; one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a prison inmate, ORS 166.275; and one count of unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.”
State v. Sanchez, 981 P.2d 361 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 166.275. He challenges the validity of the conviction on the ground that the trial court accepted his no contest plea and sentenced him without requiring the court-appointed Spanish interpreter to place her credentials on the record.”
State v. Bates, 125 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “ORS 166.275. The jury deadlocked on that charge, and the court ultimately dismissed it on the prosecution’s motion.”
State v. Rainoldi, 235 P.3d 710 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). ““The sections of ORS chapter 166 dealing with weapons, of which ORS 166.275 is one, were eventually excluded in the process of getting the criminal law revision ready for legislative enactment, but not because they were regarded as extraneous to the criminal code.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.275(7)(a) — 1 case
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Thus, in creating statutory tort liability under ORS 166.275(7)(a), the legislature would likely have relied on its understanding of the common-law concept of "legal" or "proximate cause.”
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.