167.355
Involvement in animal fighting.
(1) A person commits the crime of involvement in animal fighting if the person:
(a) Owns or
trains an animal with the intention that the animal engage in an exhibition of
fighting;
(b) Promotes,
conducts, participates in or is present as a spectator at an exhibition of
fighting or preparations thereto;
(c) Keeps or
uses, or in any way is connected with or interested in the management of, or
receives money for the admission of any person to any place kept or used for
the purpose of an exhibition of fighting; or
(d) Knowingly
suffers or permits any place over which the person has possession or control to
be occupied, kept or used for the purpose of an exhibition of fighting.
(2) For purposes
of this section:
(a) “Animal”
means any bird, reptile, amphibian, fish or nonhuman mammal, other than a dog
or a fighting bird as defined in ORS 167.426.
(b) “Exhibition
of fighting” means a public or private display of combat between two or more
animals in which the fighting, killing, maiming or injuring of animals is a
significant feature. “Exhibition of fighting” does not include demonstrations
of the hunting or tracking skills of an animal or the lawful use of animals for
hunting, tracking or self-protection.
(3) Involvement
in animal fighting is a Class C felony. [Formerly 167.865; 1987 c.249 §6; 2003
c.484 §9; 2009 c.796 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1993–1994 · leading case:
State v. Albee, 847 P.2d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Albee, 847 P.2d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 5× “ORS 167.355. He challenges the denial of his motions to dismiss and to suppress.”
State v. Gyenes, 855 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 10× “2d 858 (1993), the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground that ORS 167.355, the statute he was charged with violating, was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face.”
Hogan v. Gridelli, 879 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “A poultry specialist testified that, in evaluating the destroyed birds, she considered the performance of cross-bred gamecocks owned by plaintiff in “major venues” and information from periodicals describing his winnings. Another witness, who is a poultry breeder and consultant,…”
State v. Hartrampf, 847 P.2d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Defendant here appeals his conviction for attempted involvement in animal fighting.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.355(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Gyenes, 855 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“2d 858 (1993), the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground that ORS 167.355, the statute he was charged with violating, was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.355(3) — 1 case
Hogan v. Gridelli, 879 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“A poultry specialist testified that, in evaluating the destroyed birds, she considered the performance of cross-bred gamecocks owned by plaintiff in “major venues” and information from periodicals describing his winnings. Another witness, who is a poultry breeder and consultant,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.355(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Gyenes, 855 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“2d 858 (1993), the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground that ORS 167.355, the statute he was charged with violating, was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face.”
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.