167.350
Forfeiture of rights in mistreated animal; costs; disposition of animal. (1)(a) In addition to and not in
lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court shall require a defendant
convicted under ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355 or 167.365 to forfeit
any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation, and to
repay the reasonable costs incurred by a government agency, a humane
investigation agency or its agent or a person prior to judgment in caring for
each animal associated with the criminal proceeding.
(b) If a
government agency or a humane investigation agency or its agent provides care
and treatment for impounded or seized animals, a court that orders a defendant
to repay reasonable costs of care under paragraph (a) of this subsection may
not reduce the incurred cost amount based on the agency having received
donations or other funding for the care.
(2)(a) When the
court orders the defendant’s rights in the animal to be forfeited, the court
may further order that those rights be given over to an appropriate person or
agency demonstrating a willingness to accept and care for the animal or to the
county or an appropriate animal care agency for further disposition in
accordance with accepted practices for humane treatment of animals. The court
may not transfer the defendant’s rights in the animal to any person who resides
with the defendant.
(b) This
subsection does not limit the right of the person or agency to whom rights are
granted to resell or otherwise make disposition of the animal. A transfer of
rights under this subsection constitutes a transfer of ownership. The court
shall require a person to whom rights are granted to execute an agreement to
provide minimum care to the animal. The agreement must indicate that allowing
the defendant to possess or reside with the animal constitutes a crime.
(3) In addition
to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may order the
owner or person having custody of an animal to repay any reasonable costs
incurred by a government agency, a humane investigation agency or its agent or
a person in providing minimum care to the animal that are not included in a
repayment order under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) A court may
order a person convicted under ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355,
167.365 or 167.428 to participate in available animal cruelty prevention
programs or education programs, or both, or to obtain psychological counseling
for treatment of mental health disorders that, in the court’s judgment,
contributed to the commission of the crime. The person shall bear any costs
incurred by the person for participation in counseling or treatment programs
under this subsection.
(5) ORS 131.550
to 131.600 do not apply to the forfeiture of an animal subjected to a violation
of ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355, 167.365 or 167.428. Any such
animal is subject to forfeiture as provided in ORS 167.347 and subsections (1)
to (3) of this section or, if the animal is a fighting bird, as provided in ORS
167.435. [Formerly 167.862; 1993 c.519 §2; 1995 c.663 §6; 2001 c.666 §29; 2001
c.926 §§14a,14b; 2005 c.830 §28; 2009 c.273 §2; 2009 c.550 §3; 2017 c.677 §4;
2024 c.30 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case:
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 14× “347 are in addition to the criminal sanctions provided in ORS 167.350, which is the statute concerning forfeiture of the animals as a sanction on conviction.”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 16× “If defendant had been convicted of animal abuse, ORS 167.350 would have provided authority for the court to forfeit his rights in a mistreated animal.”
City of Lebanon v. Milburn, 398 P.3d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 15× “The city challenges the order, arguing that the circuit court erred because ORS 167.350 authorized forfeiture and because the municipal court denied defendant’s request to stay execution of the sentence pending retrial in the circuit court.”
State v. Nix, 334 P.3d 437 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 4× “ORS 167.350, for example, provides that, in addition to other penalties that a court may impose for violations of the animal cruelty laws, the court may order the forfeiture of a defendant’s rights in the animal.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, a separate statute, ORS 167.350, authorizes forfeiture “in addition to * * * any other sentence,” when a defendant is found guilty of the underlying criminal act.”
State v. Nix, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” A related statute, ORS 167.350, provides, in part: “(1) In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may require a defendant convicted under ORS 167.”
State v. Silver, 467 P.3d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 18× “2 ORS 167.350 has been amended since defendant committed his crimes, and those amendments could affect our analysis—see Or Laws 2017, ch 677, § 4— so all references to ORS 167.”
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “" Similarly, ORS 167.350(1) authorizes a court to order a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of an animal "to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× ““(6) The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the provisions of ORS 167.350 and 167.435 and ORS chapters 87 and 88.”
State v. Marsh, 66 P.3d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “The trial court imposed 60 months of probation with numerous conditions and ordered defendant to pay restitution pursuant to ORS 167.350 (1999) 1 in the amount of $43,314.”
State v. Hsieh, 499 P.3d 142 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“We reject without discussion defendant’s assignments related to insufficient evidence and unreasonable delay in filing charges.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 515 P.3d 899 (Or. 2022).
““(6) The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the provisions of ORS 167.350 [providing for post-conviction forfeiture of a mistreated animal and post-conviction repayment of reasonable costs of care] and 167.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.350(1) — 11 cases
State v. Branstetter, 45 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“347 are in addition to the criminal sanctions provided in ORS 167.350, which is the statute concerning forfeiture of the animals as a sanction on conviction.”
State v. Silver, 467 P.3d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“2 ORS 167.350 has been amended since defendant committed his crimes, and those amendments could affect our analysis—see Or Laws 2017, ch 677, § 4— so all references to ORS 167.”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“If defendant had been convicted of animal abuse, ORS 167.350 would have provided authority for the court to forfeit his rights in a mistreated animal.”
State v. Nix, 334 P.3d 437 (Or. 2014).
“ORS 167.350, for example, provides that, in addition to other penalties that a court may impose for violations of the animal cruelty laws, the court may order the forfeiture of a defendant’s rights in the animal.”
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Similarly, ORS 167.350(1) authorizes a court to order a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of an animal "to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.350(2) — 3 cases
State v. Nix, 334 P.3d 437 (Or. 2014).
“ORS 167.350, for example, provides that, in addition to other penalties that a court may impose for violations of the animal cruelty laws, the court may order the forfeiture of a defendant’s rights in the animal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.350(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Similarly, ORS 167.350(1) authorizes a court to order a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of an animal "to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.350(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Similarly, ORS 167.350(1) authorizes a court to order a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of an animal "to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.350(3) — 6 cases
State v. Nix, 334 P.3d 437 (Or. 2014).
“ORS 167.350, for example, provides that, in addition to other penalties that a court may impose for violations of the animal cruelty laws, the court may order the forfeiture of a defendant’s rights in the animal.”
State v. Nix, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A related statute, ORS 167.350, provides, in part: “(1) In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may require a defendant convicted under ORS 167.”
State v. Marsh, 66 P.3d 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“The trial court imposed 60 months of probation with numerous conditions and ordered defendant to pay restitution pursuant to ORS 167.350 (1999) 1 in the amount of $43,314.”
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.