167.325 Animal
neglect in the second degree.
(1) A person commits the crime of animal neglect in the second degree if,
except as otherwise authorized by law, the person intentionally, knowingly,
recklessly or with criminal negligence:
(a) Fails to
provide minimum care for an animal in such person’s custody or control; or
(b) Tethers a
domestic animal in the person’s custody or control and the tethering results in
physical injury to the domestic animal.
(2) Animal
neglect in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, animal neglect in the second
degree is a Class C felony if:
(a) The person
committing the offense has previously been convicted of two or more offenses
under this section, ORS 167.330 or the equivalent laws of another jurisdiction;
(b) The offense
was part of a criminal episode involving 11 or more animals; or
(c) The person
knowingly commits the offense in the immediate presence of a minor child and
the person has one or more previous convictions for an offense involving
domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230. For purposes of this paragraph, a
minor child is in the immediate presence of animal neglect if the neglect is
seen or directly perceived in any other manner by the minor child.
(4) The Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission shall classify animal neglect in the second degree
under subsection (3) of this section:
(a) As crime
category 6 if 11 to 40 animals were the subject of the neglect.
(b) As crime
category 7 if more than 40 animals were the subject of the neglect or if the
offense is a felony because of circumstances described in subsection (3)(a) or
(c) of this section. [1985 c.662 §4; 2013 c.382 §5; 2013 c.719 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nix, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Nix, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 29× “The state appeals from a judgment merging guilty verdicts against defendant that the jury rendered on 20 counts of second-degree animal neglect, ORS 167.325, into a single conviction under ORS 161.”
State v. Nix, 334 P.3d 437 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 12× “ORS 167.325 (2009). 1 Oregon’s “anti-merger” statute, ORS 161.”
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Defendant was convicted of second-degree animal neglect (ORS 167.325) 1 after she failed to adequately feed her dog, Juno, resulting in his malnourishment.”
State v. Carlton, 388 P.3d 1093 (Or. 2017).
· cites it 2× “320, ORS 167.325, and ORS 167.330, all relating to animal abuse and neglect, provide an enhanced penalty if the offender has a previous conviction under ORS 167.”
State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 333 P.3d 278 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 3× “1 Defendant Fessenden was charged with second-degree animal neglect, ORS 167.325. 2 Defendants’ trials were consolidated, and both defendants moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the officer’s seizure of the horse.”
State v. Hunter, 918 P.2d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “ORS 167.325. She assigns error to the admission of evidence pertaining to prior similar acts of animal neglect and the failure to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on six particular counts.”
State v. Nix, 345 P.3d 416 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “ORS 167.325(2) (2009). 1 The state asked the trial court to impose sentence on 20 separate convictions.”
State v. Newcomb, 324 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “In reaching that conclusion, the court determined that, in enacting ORS 167.325, “the legislature’s primary concern was to protect individual animals as sentient beings, rather than to vindicate a more generalized public interest in their welfare.”
State v. Fessenden, 310 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Defendant was charged with second-degree animal neglect under ORS 167.325. 3 She later moved to suppress evidence derived from Bartholomew’s search and seizure of the horse, including “any examination of the horse, photographs, body condition score, other observations of and…”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “345(3), in connection with second-degree animal neglect charges against respondent, ORS 167.325. The animals were placed in the care of the Klamath County Animal Shelter and Klamath Large Animal Division, both animal shelters that are run by petitioner, Klamath County.”
State v. Hess, 353 P.3d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” ORS 167.325(1) (2009), amended by Or Laws 2013, ch 719, § 4, established the crime of second-degree animal neglect.”
State v. Setere, 433 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “PER CURIAM *510 Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for 43 counts of felony animal neglect in the second degree, ORS 167.325, raising six assignments of error.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(1) — 10 cases
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
“Defendant was convicted of second-degree animal neglect (ORS 167.325) 1 after she failed to adequately feed her dog, Juno, resulting in his malnourishment.”
State v. Fessenden, 310 P.3d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Defendant was charged with second-degree animal neglect under ORS 167.325. 3 She later moved to suppress evidence derived from Bartholomew’s search and seizure of the horse, including “any examination of the horse, photographs, body condition score, other observations of and…”
State v. Nix, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“The state appeals from a judgment merging guilty verdicts against defendant that the jury rendered on 20 counts of second-degree animal neglect, ORS 167.325, into a single conviction under ORS 161.”
State v. Hess, 353 P.3d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” ORS 167.325(1) (2009), amended by Or Laws 2013, ch 719, § 4, established the crime of second-degree animal neglect.”
State v. Newcomb, 324 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“In reaching that conclusion, the court determined that, in enacting ORS 167.325, “the legislature’s primary concern was to protect individual animals as sentient beings, rather than to vindicate a more generalized public interest in their welfare.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(2) — 4 cases
State v. Nix, 345 P.3d 416 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 167.325(2) (2009). 1 The state asked the trial court to impose sentence on 20 separate convictions.”
State v. Hunter, 918 P.2d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 167.325. She assigns error to the admission of evidence pertaining to prior similar acts of animal neglect and the failure to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on six particular counts.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“345(3), in connection with second-degree animal neglect charges against respondent, ORS 167.325. The animals were placed in the care of the Klamath County Animal Shelter and Klamath Large Animal Division, both animal shelters that are run by petitioner, Klamath County.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(3)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Nix, 345 P.3d 416 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 167.325(2) (2009). 1 The state asked the trial court to impose sentence on 20 separate convictions.”
State v. Setere, 433 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“PER CURIAM *510 Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for 43 counts of felony animal neglect in the second degree, ORS 167.325, raising six assignments of error.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“345(3), in connection with second-degree animal neglect charges against respondent, ORS 167.325. The animals were placed in the care of the Klamath County Animal Shelter and Klamath Large Animal Division, both animal shelters that are run by petitioner, Klamath County.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(4)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(4)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.325(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Newcomb, 324 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“In reaching that conclusion, the court determined that, in enacting ORS 167.325, “the legislature’s primary concern was to protect individual animals as sentient beings, rather than to vindicate a more generalized public interest in their welfare.”
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.