Theft by receiving
Source:
Section 164.095 — Theft by receiving, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors164.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 165.045)
This section required actual knowledge or belief by the defendant that the property was stolen. State v. Redeman, 9 Or App 329, 496 P2d 230 (1972)
In general
A jury instruction in the words of the statute is ambiguous and erroneous. An instruction should advise a jury that the culpable mental state required is actual knowledge on the part of the defendant, or belief by the defendant that the property was the subject of theft. State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973)
“Reason to know” property is stolen is insufficient absent showing of actual knowledge or belief. State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973)
Belief or knowledge that goods are stolen may be inferred from facts showing defendant had reason to believe goods were stolen. State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973); State v. Korelis, 273 Or 427, 541 P2d 468 (1975)
Defendant can properly be convicted of attempted theft by receiving even though the subject property was not stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)
In a theft prosecution based upon illegally obtaining or receiving the property of another, the state must prove the property was, in fact, stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)
Once property is recovered by the police, it ceases to be stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)
The trial court in instructing the jury properly recited the general theft provisions of ORS 164.015 to provide the statutory context for the theft by receiving provision. State v. Schindler, 20 Or App 400, 531 P2d 915 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
Where it was alleged that defendant sold automobile manifold knowing it was stolen, indictment charged defendant solely with first degree theft by sale under this section and ORS 164.015. State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980)
Evidence did not support theft by receiving theory where defendant’s travel expenses were paid by employer upon agreement that defendant would repay them when later reimbursed by FEMA for those expenses, and where defendant subsequently did not do so and advised employer that he had not received reimbursement from FEMA. State v. Baker, 92 Or App 583, 759 P2d 321 (1988)
Defendant was entitled to UCJI No. 1806 on theft by receiving where he testified to meeting friend Paco on day before and again on day of arrest, at which time he bought allegedly stolen property, and that after putting items in his truck he gave Paco ride, developed car trouble and pulled into driveway near where he was shortly arrested, and where he further testified that Paco fled upon initial stop by police. State v. Cheney, 92 Or App 633, 759 P2d 1119 (1988)
Trial court properly instructed jury on culpable mental state needed to convict defendant under this section when court instructed jury that it must find defendant knew or believed property was stolen. State v. Ripka, 111 Or App 469, 827 P2d 189 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Original taker of items can be found to have committed theft by receiving due to retention, concealment or disposition of items. State v. Harelson, 147 Or App 556, 938 P2d 763 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State v. Pickens, 6 Or App 133, 487 P2d 95 (1971); State v. Penland, 6 Or App 255, 486 P2d 1314 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date