(1) conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable & not criminal when^*:

(a) the conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury AND

(b) the threatened injury is of such seriousness that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence & morality, the desirability & urgency of avoiding it clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury that the violated statute was trying to prevent

(2) The necessity & justifiability of the conduct in (1) will not only rest only on the morality & advisability of the violated statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising under it

^*Unless inconsistent with provisions of chapter 743 of the Oregon Laws of 1971 that define justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law

(1) a confession alone is sufficient to warrant the conviction of a defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed if:

(a) the state files notice in accordance with (3)

(b) the defendant is charged with a crime listed in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A.005 to 163A.235)

(c) the victim is a vulnerable person

(d) the victim is incompetent to testify under (Rule 601. General rule of competency)

(e) the confession is made to a peace officer or a federal officer, as those terms are defined in ORS 133.005 (Definitions for ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450), or to an individual conducting an investigation under ORS 430.745 (Investigation of abuse), while the officer or individual is acting in the course of official duty AND

(f) The court finds that there is sufficient evidence to establish the trustworthiness of the confession

(2) in making the determination described in (1)(f), the court will consider the following factors, in addition to other factors it considers important:

(a) whether there is evidence demonstrating the truthfulness of portions of the confession

(b) whether the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime

(c) tThe method of interrogation used to solicit the confession AND

(d) whether the defendant is a vulnerable person

a person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if:

(1) the person is made criminally liable by the statute defining the crime OR

(2) with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person:

(a) solicits or commands such other person to commit the crime OR

(b) aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet another person in planning or committing the crime OR

(c) having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the crime, fails to make an effort that they are legally required to make

(1) regardless of 161.095 (requirements for criminal liability), a culpable mental state is not required if:

(a) the offense constitutes a violation, unless a culpable mental state is expressly included in the definition of the offense OR

(b) an offense defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal Code clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with any culpable mental state requirement for the offense or for any of its material elements

(2) regardless of any other existing law, & unless a statute enacted after January 1, 1972 provides otherwise, an offense defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal Code that requires no culpable mental state constitutes a violation

(3) although an offense defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal Code requires no culpable mental state with respect to one or more of its material elements, the culpable commission of the offense may be alleged and proved, in which case criminal negligence constitutes sufficient culpability, and the classification of the offense and the authorised sentence is determined by 161.505 ("Offense" described) to 161.605 (Maximum terms of imprisonment for felonies) & from 161.615 (Maximum terms of imprisonment for misdemeanors) to 161.655 (Fines for corporations)

(1) the medical examiner shall investigate and certify the cause and manner of all human deaths:

(a) apparently homicidal, suicidal or occurring under suspicious or unknown circumstances

(b) resulting from the unlawful use of controlled substances or the use or abuse of chemicals or toxic agents

(c) occurring while incarcerated in any jail, correction facility or in police custody

(d) apparently accidental or following an injury

(e) by disease, injury or toxic agent during or arising from employment

(f) while not under the care of a physician during the period immediately previous to death

(g) related to disease which might constitute a threat to the public health OR

(h) in which a human body apparently has been disposed of in an offensive manner

(2) as used in this statute, 'offensive manner' means a manner offensive to the generally accepted standards of the community

(1) When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.

(2) When the same conduct or criminal episode that only violates one legal provision but involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims. However, two or more persons owning joint interests in real or personal property will be considered a single victim for purposes of determining the number of separately punishable offenses if the property is the subject of one of the following crimes:

However, two or more people who own joint interest in real or personal property are considered a single victim for purposes of determining the number of separately punishable offenses if their property is the subject of one of the following crimes:

(a) 164.015 (theft)

(b) 164.135 (unauthorized use of a vehicle)

(c) 164.140 (criminal possession of rented/leased personal property)

(d) 164.138 (criminal possession of rented/leased motor vehicle)

(e) 164.215 (burglary 2) or 164.225 (burglary 1)

(f) Trespass as defined in:

• 164.243 (criminal trespass 2 - guest)

• 164.245 (criminal trespass 2)

• 164.255 (criminal trespass 1)

• 164.265 (criminal trespass in possession of firearm)

• 164.278 (criminal trespass at a sports event)

(g) Arson & related offenses:

• 164.315 (arson 2)

• 164.325 (arson 1)

• 164.335 (reckless burning)

(h) Forgery and related offenses:

• 165.007 (forgery 2)

• 165.013 (forgery 1)

• 165.022 (criminal possession of a forged instrument 1)

• 165.032 (criminal possession of a forgery device)

• 165.037 (criminal simulation)

• 165.042 (fraudulently obtaining a signature)

• 165.077

• 165.055 (fraudulent use of a credit card)

• 165.065 (negotiating a bad check)

• 165.070 (possessing fraudulent communications device)

(3) When the same conduct or criminal episode violates only one law & involves only one victim, but still involves repeated violations of the same law against the same victim, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are violations. The exception is that for each violation to be separately punishable, it must be separated from the other violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant's criminal conduct allowing them an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.

Each way of engaging in oral intercourse, anal intercourse, 163.408 (unlawful sexual penetration 2) & 163.411 (unlawful sexual penetration 1) constitutes separate violations of the respective legal provisions for purposes of determining the number of violations that have occurred

(1) performing acts which would normally constitute an offense, other than murder, is not criminal if the actor engaged in the conduct because they were coerced to do so by the use or threatened use of unlawful physical force upon them or a third person, the force or threatened force being of such a nature or degree as to overcome earnest resistance

(2) duress is not a defense for one who intentionally or recklessly places oneself in a situation in which it is probable that one will be subjected to duress

(3) it's not a defense that a spouse acted on the command of the other spouse, unless the spouse acted under such coercion that it establishes a defense under (1)

(1) the commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the conduct because they were induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution

(2) as used in this section, induced means that the actor did not contemplate & would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense doesn't constitute entrapment

(1) that the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of any crime based upon the conduct in question or has been convicted of a different crime or degree of crime OR

(2) the crime, as defined, can be committed only by a particular class or classes of people to which the defendant doesn't belong, & for that reason, the defendant is legally incapable of committing the crime in an individual capacity

(1) the person is a victim of that crime OR

(2) the crime defined so that the conduct of the person is necessarily incidental to it

(1) In a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was impossible to commit the crime which was the object of the attempt where the conduct engaged in by the actor would be a crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them to be.

Clarification

a suspect can't defend against an attempt charge by saying it would have been impossible to carry out the crime at the time of the attempt if the circumstances as the suspect believed at the time of the attempt would have resulted in a crime. Example:

in order to collect on a life insurance policy, a subject leaves on an unlit gas stove in an attempt to asphyxiate the occupants of the house. However, unknown to the subject the gas had been shutoff by the gas company at the time of the attempt making it impossible to kill the occupants that way.

Even though it was impossible to murder the occupants as the gas was shut off, the subject would not be able claim a defence of impossibility because at the time of the attempt they believed that the gas was in fact switched on.

it's a defence against prosecution to use justification as defined in the following:

• 161.195 (justification - described)

• 161.200 (choice of evils)

• 161.205 (use of physical force generally)

• 161.209 (use of physical force in defense of a person)

• 161.215 (limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person)

• 161.219 (limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person)

• 161.225 (use of physical force in defense of premises)

• 161.229 (use of physical force in defense of property)

• 161.235 (use of physical force in making an arrest or preventing an escape)

• 161.239 (use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or preventing an escape)

• 161.245

• 161.249 (use of physical force by private person assisting an arrest)

• 161.255 (use of physical force by private person making citizen's arrest)

• 161.260 (use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited)

• 161.265 (use of physical force to prevent escape)

• 161.267

• 161.270 (duress)

• 161.275 (entrapment)

(1) conduct which would normally constitute an offense is justifiable & not criminal when it's required or authorised by law or by a judicial decree or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of official powers, duties or functions^*

(2) as used in (1), laws and judicial decrees include but are not limited to:

(a) laws defining duties & functions of public servants

(b) laws defining duties of private citizens to assist public servants in the performance of certain of their functions

(c) laws governing the execution of legal process

(d) laws governing the military services & conduct of war AND

(e) judgments and orders of courts

^* unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law

(1) in a death requiring an investigation, no person will move a human body or body suspected of being human, or remove any of the effects of the deceased or instruments or weapons related to the death without the permission of a medical examiner, medical-legal death investigator or the district attorney.

(2) no person shall move or remove any of the items specified in subsection (1) of this section if the medical examiner or district attorney objects

(3) a medical examiner, district attorney or medical-legal death investigator shall take custody of or exercise control over the body, the effects of the deceased and any weapons, instruments, vehicles, buildings or premises which the medical examiner, district attorney or medical-legal death investigator has reason to believe were involved in the death, in order to preserve evidence relating to the cause and manner of death

(4) in a death requiring investigation, no person shall undress, embalm, cleanse the surface of the body or otherwise alter the appearance or the state of the body without the permission of the medical examiner or the district attorney

(1) The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which the person is capable of performing

(2) Except as provided in 161.105 (culpability requirement inapplicable to certain violations and offenses), a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state

(1) the use of or dependence on drugs or controlled substances, or voluntary intoxication will not constitute a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence that the defendant used or was dependent on drugs or controlled substances, or was intoxicated may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the charged crime

(2) when recklessness establishes an element of the offense, it is immaterial that the defendant, due to the use of or dependence on drugs or controlled substances or voluntary intoxication, is unaware of a risk that they would have been aware it they weren't intoxicated, using or dependent on drugs or controlled substances