Offenses Against General Welfare and Animals

ORS 167.325
Animal neglect in the second degree

(1)

A person commits the crime of animal neglect in the second degree if, except as otherwise authorized by law, the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence:

(a)

Fails to provide minimum care for an animal in such person’s custody or control; or

(b)

Tethers a domestic animal in the person’s custody or control and the tethering results in physical injury to the domestic animal.

(2)

Animal neglect in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.

(3)

Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, animal neglect in the second degree is a Class C felony if:

(a)

The person committing the offense has previously been convicted of two or more offenses under this section, ORS 167.330 (Animal neglect in the first degree) or the equivalent laws of another jurisdiction;

(b)

The offense was part of a criminal episode involving 11 or more animals; or

(c)

The person knowingly commits the offense in the immediate presence of a minor child and the person has one or more previous convictions for an offense involving domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230 (Definitions for ORS 135.230 to 135.290). For purposes of this paragraph, a minor child is in the immediate presence of animal neglect if the neglect is seen or directly perceived in any other manner by the minor child.

(4)

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall classify animal neglect in the second degree under subsection (3) of this section:

(a)

As crime category 6 if 11 to 40 animals were the subject of the neglect.

(b)

As crime category 7 if more than 40 animals were the subject of the neglect or if the offense is a felony because of circumstances described in subsection (3)(a) or (c) of this section. [1985 c.662 §4; 2013 c.382 §5; 2013 c.719 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Evidence that defendant lived in home, fed dogs, took dogs to veterinary visits, was part of decision-making about whether to keep dogs and exercised power over dogs by breaking up dog fights, was sufficient for reasonable juror to find defendant had "control" over dogs for purpose of this statute. State v. Crosswhite, 273 Or App 605, 359 P3d 529 (2015)

Chapter 167

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Exemption of nuisance laws from constitutional requirement for payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS