Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085 (2026)

Defenses in prosecutions under ORS 167.075 and 167.080

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

167.085 Defenses in prosecutions under ORS 167.075 and 167.080. In any prosecution under ORS 167.075 and 167.080, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove:

(1) That the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor;

(2) That the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or public library, or was acting in the course of employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization;

(3) That the defendant was charged with furnishing, showing, exhibiting or displaying an item, those portions of which might otherwise be contraband forming merely an incidental part of an otherwise nonoffending whole, and serving some purpose therein other than titillation; or

(4) That the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the person involved was not a minor. [1971 c.743 §260; 1993 c.18 §27; 2001 c.607 §1]

167.087 [1973 c.699 §4; repealed by 2007 c.869 §11]

167.089 [1975 c.272 §2; repealed by 2007 c.869 §11]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1975–2010 · leading case: State v. Maynard, 5 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Maynard, 5 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 72× “065 to [ORS] 167.080, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove: "(1) That the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor; "(2) That the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or public library, or was acting in the course of…”

State v. Woodcock, 706 P.2d 1012 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 20× “080, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove: "(3) That the defendant was charged with the sale, showing, exhibition or display of an item, those portions of which might otherwise be contraband forming merely an incidental part of an otherwise nonoffending whole,…”

State v. Frink, 653 P.2d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 9× “It contends that the affirmative defenses set forth in ORS 167.085, and particularly ORS 167.085(3), save the statute by narrowing its reach.”

State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 10× “See ORS 167.085. Conversely, it applies to people whether or not their actions harm or endanger minors.”

Powell's Books, Inc. v. Myers, 599 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Or. 2008). · cites it 8× “A related statute, ORS § 167.085, which contains defenses to prosecution under two obscenity statutes not challenged in this case, is more helpful.”

Film Follies, Inc. v. Haas, 539 P.2d 669 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “060(10), and ORS 167.085 violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Art I, § 8 and Art IY, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution.”

State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 917 P.2d 494 (Or. 1996). “825 [concerning unlawful cutting and transport of trees and forest products] that the defendant is in fact the owner of the trees or special forest products cut or transported”); ORS 167.085 (“[i]n any prosecution under ORS 167.”

State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 897 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “828; ORS 167.085; ORS 167.095; ORS 167.142; ORS 167.”

400 E. Baltimore Street, Inc. v. State, 431 A.2d 682 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981). “); Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085 (2); Pa. Stat. Ann.”

Powell's Books, Inc. v. Kroger, 622 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2010). “]” Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085 (amended 2007). 11 Reading these provisions together, the court in Maynard construed the statute as “seeking] to prevent harm to children by prohibiting attempts to titillate them by means of sexually explicit materials” and to “protect[] children…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085(1) — 2 cases

State v. Maynard, 5 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “065 to [ORS] 167.080, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove: "(1) That the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor; "(2) That the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or public library, or was acting in the course of…”

State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “See ORS 167.085. Conversely, it applies to people whether or not their actions harm or endanger minors.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085(2) — 2 cases

State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “See ORS 167.085. Conversely, it applies to people whether or not their actions harm or endanger minors.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085(3) — 5 cases

State v. Woodcock, 706 P.2d 1012 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “080, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove: "(3) That the defendant was charged with the sale, showing, exhibition or display of an item, those portions of which might otherwise be contraband forming merely an incidental part of an otherwise nonoffending whole,…”

State v. Frink, 653 P.2d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “It contends that the affirmative defenses set forth in ORS 167.085, and particularly ORS 167.085(3), save the statute by narrowing its reach.”

Powell's Books, Inc. v. Myers, 599 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Or. 2008). “A related statute, ORS § 167.085, which contains defenses to prosecution under two obscenity statutes not challenged in this case, is more helpful.”

Film Follies, Inc. v. Haas, 539 P.2d 669 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “060(10), and ORS 167.085 violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Art I, § 8 and Art IY, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.085(4) — 1 case

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.