Offenses Against Property

ORS 164.015
“Theft” described

A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person:


Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof;


Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065 (Theft of lost, mislaid property);


Commits extortion as provided in ORS 164.075 (Extortion) by compelling or inducing another person to deliver property;


Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085 (Theft by deception); or


Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.095 (Theft by receiving). [1971 c.743 §123; 2007 c.71 §47; 2016 c.47 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Except in cases of extortion, indictment alleging defendant "takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds" property adequately conveys concept of theft without additional specification of means of theft. State v. Jim, 13 Or App 201, 508 P2d 462 (1973)

Theft by obtaining property requires that property obtained must actually be stolen. State v. Niehuser, 21 Or App 33, 533 P2d 834 (1975)

An indictment charging the defendant with the crime of theft which was framed in terms of this statute and ORS 164.055 adequately provided notice as required by due process. State v. Gray, 23 Or App 464, 543 P2d 316 (1975)

Where a defendant receives different items of stolen property from different individuals at different times, each act of receiving constitutes a separate interference with property rights which may be prosecuted as a violation of the theft statute. State v. Gilbert, 27 Or App 1, 555 P2d 31 (1976), aff'd 281 Or 101, 574 P2d 313 (1978)

Where indictment alleged that defendant sold automobile manifold knowing that it was stolen, indictment charged defendant solely with first degree theft by sale under this section and ORS 164.095. State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980)

Theft by taking did not merge for sentencing purposes with theft by receiving, committed by selling stolen item, because there were two criminal objectives and two separate victims. Smith v. State of Oregon, 78 Or App 485, 717 P2d 240 (1986)

Except for theft by extortion, separate definitions of various methods for accomplishing property deprivation do not create distinct offenses allowing separate punishments based on single deprivation of property. State v. Cox, 336 Or 284, 82 P3d 619 (2003)

To "take" property requires both dominion and control of property and movement of property. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 196 P3d 1037 (2008)

Even slight movement of property from place where defendant finds property is sufficient for establishing taking. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 196 P3d 1037 (2008); State v. Rocha, 233 Or App 1, 225 P3d 45 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

Accused appropriated property when accused withdrew funds from client's account and disposed of funds for accused's personal purposes even though accused claimed to repay funds to client's account. In re Phinney, 354 Or 329, 311 P3d 517 (2013)

§§ 164.005 to 164.135

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 432, 525-536 (1972); 10 WLJ 156 (1974)

Chapter 164

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021