ORS 162.155
Escape in the second degree


A person commits the crime of escape in the second degree if:


The person uses or threatens to use physical force escaping from custody; or


Having been convicted or found guilty of a felony, the person escapes from custody imposed as a result thereof; or


The person escapes from a correctional facility; or


While under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board under ORS 161.315 (Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant) to 161.351 (Discharge by board), the person departs, is absent from or fails to return to this state without authorization of the board.


Escape in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §191; 1983 c.800 §13; 1985 c.192 §1; 2011 c.708 §22; 2017 c.442 §21]

Source: Section 162.155 — Escape in the second degree, https://www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/bills_laws/ors/ors162.­html.

Notes of Decisions

The facts warranted submission to the jury the question whether defendant “escaped” within the meaning of this provision and a related provision, ORS 162.135, and not only a charge of attempt to escape, where defendant broke away and ran from a guard in courthouse parking lot and was caught only moments later, having never been more than 20 steps ahead of the guard. State v. Fitzgerald, 16 Or App 376, 518 P2d 678 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

The State of Oregon had no jurisdiction over the Indian defendant for an escape which occurred solely and entirely upon the Warm Springs Reservation. State v. Smith, 277 Or 251, 560 P2d 1066 (1977)

Where defendant who escaped from confinement in work camp located in Tillamook County, was charged with escape under this section, venue was proper only in that county so prosecuting defendant in Marion County, where he had been confined prior to transfer, was improper. State v. Dillenburg, 49 Or App 911, 621 P2d 1193 (1980)

Custody is “result” of conviction or finding of guilt if person has been placed in actual or constructive restraint of police officer, and not within correctional facility, following finding of guilt and remand to custody of officer or agency or following judgment of conviction and order of commitment to correctional facility. State v. Palaia, 289 Or 463, 614 P2d 1120 (1980)

Program from which defendant escaped qualified as “work release program” and defendant was in constructive custody of Multnomah County jail, a correctional facility. State v. Scott, 94 Or App 250, 764 P2d 976 (1988)

Defendant was guilty of escape in second degree when defendant failed to comply with terms of inmate furlough program including requirements that defendant return to sister’s home each evening and maintain phone contact with sheriff’s department. State v. Sasser, 104 Or App 251, 799 P2d 1146 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant was in custody at time jury rendered guilty verdict and court received verdict, custody status of defendant was result of guilty verdict even though court did not expressly remand defendant. State v. McCauley, 119 Or App 384, 851 P2d 608 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Where home detention qualified as conditional release, failure to comply with terms was not escape. State v. Wilde, 123 Or App 493, 862 P2d 105 (1993)

Unauthorized departure from court-ordered home detention constituted escape from correctional facility. State v. Esmond, 125 Or App 613, 866 P2d 494 (1994)

Where defendant escaping from outside site was under uninterrupted supervision of correctional facility employee, escape was from constructive confinement in correctional facility rather than from custody. State v. Croghan, 162 Or App 251, 986 P2d 579 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

“Escaping from custody” means that person subject to actual or constructive restraint or control by peace officer sets out on course of action that results, even momentarily, in person no longer being within officer’s restraint or control. State v. Metcalfe, 172 Or App 501, 19 P3d 374 (2001)

Where deputy sheriff was present in courtroom, order reducing defendant to custody of deputy sheriff made courtroom correctional facility. State v. Lane, 341 Or 433, 144 P3d 927 (2006)

Act of escaping is complete at time person departs from actual or constructive restraint by peace officer. State v. Lonergan, 344 Or 15, 176 P3d 374 (2008)

For purpose of determining whether person used or threatened to use physical force to escape custody, person is in custody when peace officer has actually or constructively restrained person for purpose of charging person with offense. State v. Alexander, 238 Or App 597, 243 P3d 476 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

Escape from custody imposed as result of post-prison supervision violation after defendant served sentence of incarceration is not escape from custody “imposed as a result” of felony conviction within meaning of this section. State v. Patterson, 269 Or App 885, 346 P3d 614 (2015)

Definitions for ORS 162.005 to 162.425
Bribe giving
Bribe receiving
Bribery defenses
Definitions for ORS 162.055 to 162.425
False swearing
Unsworn falsification
Defenses to perjury and false swearing limited
Retraction as defense
Corroboration of falsity required
Public investment fraud
Illegal conduct by State Treasury not a defense
Public fraud as racketeering activity
Construction of ORS 162.117 to 162.121
Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205
Escape in the third degree
Escape in the second degree
Escape in the first degree
Unauthorized departure
Supplying contraband
Failure to appear
Failure to appear in the second degree
Failure to appear in the first degree
Definitions for ORS 162.225 to 162.375
Obstructing governmental or judicial administration
Refusing to assist a peace officer
Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer
Refusing to assist in fire-fighting operations
Interfering with a firefighter or emergency medical services provider
Bribing a witness
Bribe receiving by a witness
Tampering with a witness
Tampering with physical evidence
Tampering with public records
Resisting arrest
Hindering prosecution
Defenses for hindering or compounding limited
Simulating legal process
Criminal impersonation of a public servant
Criminal impersonation of a peace officer
Possession of a false law enforcement identification card
Initiating a false report
Giving false information to a peace officer in connection with a citation or warrant
Official misconduct in the second degree
Official misconduct in the first degree
Misuse of confidential information
Interfering with legislative operations
Unlawful legislative lobbying
Green check means up to date. Up to date