Offenses Against Persons

ORS 163.750
Violating a court’s stalking protective order

(1)

A person commits the crime of violating a court’s stalking protective order when:

(a)

The person has been served with a court’s stalking protective order as provided in ORS 30.866 (Action for issuance or violation of stalking protective order) or 163.738 (Effect of citation) or if further service was waived under ORS 163.741 (Service of stalking protective order) because the person appeared before the court;

(b)

The person, subsequent to the service of the order, has engaged intentionally, knowingly or recklessly in conduct prohibited by the order; and

(c)

If the conduct is prohibited contact as defined in ORS 163.730 (Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750) (3)(d), (e), (f), (h) or (i), the subsequent conduct has created reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of a person protected by the order.

(2)

(a) Violating a court’s stalking protective order is a Class A misdemeanor.

(b)

Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, violating a court’s stalking protective order is a Class C felony if the person has a prior conviction for:

(A)

Stalking; or

(B)

Violating a court’s stalking protective order.

(c)

When violating a court’s stalking protective order is a Class C felony pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, violating a court’s stalking protective order shall be classified as a person felony and as crime category 8 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [1993 c.626 §8; 1995 c.353 §7]
Note: See note under 163.730 (Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750).

Notes of Decisions

Collateral bar doctrine did not prevent challenge at violation hearing to constitutionality of stalking protective order issued under pre-1995 version of ORS 163.738 because issuance and violation statutes were in pari materia. State v. Orton, 137 Or App 339, 904 P2d 179 (1995)

This provision does not proscribe any speech not otherwise prohibited by stalking protective order. State v. Ryan, 350 Or 670, 261 P3d 1189 (2011)

Defendant did not violate victim's stalking protective order when defendant sent apology letter to victim because letter was "written communication" under ORS 163.730, and did not cause victim reasonable apprehension for personal safety as required for violation of this section. State v. Meek, 266 Or App 550, 338 P3d 767 (2014)

§§ 163.730 to 163.750

Notes of Decisions

Requirement in force prior to 1995 amendments that conduct be "without legitimate purpose" was unconstitutionally vague. State v. Norris-Romine/Finley, 134 Or App 204, 894 P2d 1221 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 163

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS