General Provisions

ORS 161.155
Criminal liability for conduct of another

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


The person is made criminally liable by the statute defining the crime; or


With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person:


Solicits or commands such other person to commit the crime; or


Aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime; or


Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the crime, fails to make an effort the person is legally required to make. [1971 c.743 §13]

Notes of Decisions

Defendant aided and abetted within the meaning of this section where he continued to aid accomplice in the commission of a cafe burglary after accomplice used deadly weapon despite protests by defendant. State v. Hightower, 17 Or App 112, 520 P2d 470 (1974)

Aiding and abetting includes advising, counseling, procuring or encouraging another in the commission of a crime. State v. Smith, 18 Or App 39, 523 P2d 1048 (1974)

Where defendant and others unlawfully occupied farm shed of another, defendant was liable for acts of his co-offenders. State v. Essig, 31 Or App 639, 571 P2d 170 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant, indicted for perpetrating criminal acts of first degree rape and first degree sodomy, challenged jury instruction which allowed jury to find defendant guilty of charges if it found that defendant aided and abetted commission of those criminal acts, such instruction was proper. State v. LeBrun, 37 Or App 411, 587 P2d 1044 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where, although there was no direct evidence of collusion, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support inference that defendant and other had acted in concert in killing victim in their actions both before and after crime, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of collusion to support instruction on aiding and abetting. State v. Moriarty, 87 Or App 465, 742 P2d 704 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant met with other person on day before property was stolen, knew other person's reputation for "wheeling and dealing" and asked other person to sell him VCR and color television "used" at cheap price, did not establish command or solicitation to commit crime. State v. Cheney, 92 Or App 633, 759 P2d 1119 (1988)

Where arrested defendant's thrashing about was intended to assist others in resisting her arrest, it was not error for trial court to deny defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on resisting arrest charge. State v. Hasan, 93 Or App 142, 760 P2d 1377 (1988)

Acquiescence alone is not sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holloway, 102 Or App 553, 795 P2d 589 (1990); State v. Anlauf, 164 Or App 672, 995 P2d 547 (2000)

Defendant aided and abetted sexual assault when defendant and co-defendant dragged victim into room, defendant had opportunity to observe co-defendant "going up" shirt of victim, defendant invited others into room, individuals invited into room yelled and victim screamed. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Arevalo, 117 Or App 505, 844 P2d 928 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

When defendant told undercover police officer to "see that guy" about buying cocaine, rational trier of fact could find defendant aided or abetted crime of delivering cocaine. State v. Bargas-Perez, 117 Or App 510, 844 P2d 931 (1992)

Where coconspirator commits separate crime during course of common criminal episode, defendant's participation in common criminal episode does not by itself establish that defendant was aider and abettor in commission of separate crime. State v. Anlauf, 164 Or App 672, 995 P2d 547 (2000)

Defendant indicted as principal in crime may be convicted under aid and abet theory without state pleading defendant's intent to promote or facilitate crime. State v. Burney, 191 Or App 227, 82 P3d 164 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Criminal liability of defendant for acts of another is limited to acts defendant intended to promote or facilitate. State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 236 Or App 270, 237 P3d 223 (2010), aff'd 350 Or 576, 260 P3d 439 (2011)

Person cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting based solely on conduct that occurs after commission of predicate offense. State v. Wilson, 240 Or App 475, 248 P3d 10 (2011)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Illegality of licensee approving plans prepared by one not an employe or licensed, (1972) Vol 35, p 1173; criminal liability of licensed nurse for conduct of person practicing nursing who is not licensed and has not completed board-approved training program, (1980) Vol 41, p 166

Chapter 161

Notes of Decisions

A juvenile court adjudication of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a criminal violation if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudication of all affirmative defenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same criminal violation. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L.J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)

Law Review Citations

2 EL 237 (1971); 51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Chapter 161

Criminal Code


Notes of Decisions

Legislature's adoption of 1971 Criminal Code did not abolish doctrine of transferred intent. State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 295 P3d 1147 (2013), Sup Ct review denied


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021