9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wimbergreen2 sentences2010ORS 132.550(7) provides that an indictment must contain “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended[.]” An indictment “fails to state facts constituting an offense when it fails to allege each of the essential elements of the offense.” State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, 109 , *481 843 P2d 424 (1992). 2010ORS 132.550(7) provides that an indictment must contain “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended[.]” An indictment “fails to state facts constituting an offense when it fails to allege each of the essential elements of the offense.” State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, 109 , *481 843 P2d 424 (1992). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Burns, 213 Or App 38, 42 , 159 P3d 1208 (2007), rev dismissed, 345 Or 302 (2008) (purposes of indictment include providing notice so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense, protecting against additional prosecution for same crime, informing trial court as to charges, and ensuring that offense for which the defendant is tried is based on facts found by a grand jury). 2010See, e.g., State v. Burns, 213 Or App 38, 42 , 159 P3d 1208 (2007), rev dismissed, 345 Or 302 (2008) (purposes of indictment include providing notice so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense, protecting against additional prosecution for same crime, informing trial court as to charges, and ensuring that offense for which the defendant is tried is based on facts found by a grand jury). | 1 | 1 |
Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealthgreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Burns, 213 Or App 38, 42 , 159 P3d 1208 (2007), rev dismissed, 345 Or 302 (2008) (purposes of indictment include providing notice so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense, protecting against additional prosecution for same crime, informing trial court as to charges, and ensuring that offense for which the defendant is tried is based on facts found by a grand jury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2007Consistent with those same purposes, Oregon courts do not require an indictment to charge a criminal offense with great specificity, relying instead on discovery “to inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge.” State v. Watson, 193 Or App 757, 761 , 91 P3d 765 , rev den, 337 Or 476 *43 (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 307 , 999 P2d 1220 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 169 Or App 78 , 7 P3d 738 , rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000) (holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally suffici 2007Consistent with those same purposes, Oregon courts do not require an indictment to charge a criminal offense with great specificity, relying instead on discovery “to inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge.” State v. Watson, 193 Or App 757, 761 , 91 P3d 765 , rev den, 337 Or 476 *43 (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 307 , 999 P2d 1220 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 169 Or App 78 , 7 P3d 738 , rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000) (holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally suffici | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2007Consistent with those same purposes, Oregon courts do not require an indictment to charge a criminal offense with great specificity, relying instead on discovery “to inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge.” State v. Watson, 193 Or App 757, 761 , 91 P3d 765 , rev den, 337 Or 476 *43 (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 307 , 999 P2d 1220 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 169 Or App 78 , 7 P3d 738 , rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000) (holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally suffici 2007Consistent with those same purposes, Oregon courts do not require an indictment to charge a criminal offense with great specificity, relying instead on discovery “to inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge.” State v. Watson, 193 Or App 757, 761 , 91 P3d 765 , rev den, 337 Or 476 *43 (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 307 , 999 P2d 1220 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 169 Or App 78 , 7 P3d 738 , rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000) (holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally suffici | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cramptongreen2 sentences2002See State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62, 67 , 31 P3d 430 (2001) (citing Wimber, 315 Or at 118-19 ). 2002See State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62, 67 , 31 P3d 430 (2001) (citing Wimber, 315 Or at 118-19 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burnett
green
2 sentences2017Under ORS 132.550(7), an indictment must contain, among other things, “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” The purposes of such a statement are “(1) to provide notice so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense; (2) to identify the crime so as to provide protection against additional prosecution for the same crime; (3) to inform the court as to what charges are being brought against the defendant; and (4) to ensure that the defe 2017Under ORS 132.550(7), an indictment must contain, among other things, “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” The purposes of such a statement are “(1) to provide notice so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense; (2) to identify the crime so as to provide protection against additional prosecution for the same crime; (3) to inform the court as to what charges are being brought against the defendant; and (4) to ensure that the defe | 4 | 2007–2017 |
Orr v. Hill
green
1 sentence2017With those things in mind, we have recognized that an “indictment that serves those functions satisfies the requirements of ORS 132.550(7).” State v. Eberhardt, 225 Or App 275, 279 , 201 P3d 915 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Eberhardt
red
2 sentences2017With those things in mind, we have recognized that an “indictment that serves those functions satisfies the requirements of ORS 132.550(7).” State v. Eberhardt, 225 Or App 275, 279 , 201 P3d 915 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010). 2017With those things in mind, we have recognized that an “indictment that serves those functions satisfies the requirements of ORS 132.550(7).” State v. Eberhardt, 225 Or App 275, 279 , 201 P3d 915 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences2009Corp. v. Vasquez, 147 Or App 704, 708 , 938 P2d 237 (1997) (statements of carriers of bill in the House and the Senate regarded as determinative). *273 We conclude that the requirement of ORS 136.765 that the state provide a defendant with notice of its intention to rely on enhancement facts “[w]ithin a reasonable time” is intended to be time sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense against those particular enhancement facts. 2009Corp. v. Vasquez, 147 Or App 704, 708 , 938 P2d 237 (1997) (statements of carriers of bill in the House and the Senate regarded as determinative). *273 We conclude that the requirement of ORS 136.765 that the state provide a defendant with notice of its intention to rely on enhancement facts “[w]ithin a reasonable time” is intended to be time sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense against those particular enhancement facts. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences2007Consistent with those same purposes, Oregon courts do not require an indictment to charge a criminal offense with great specificity, relying instead on discovery “to inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge.” State v. Watson, 193 Or App 757, 761 , 91 P3d 765 , rev den, 337 Or 476 *43 (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 307 , 999 P2d 1220 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 169 Or App 78 , 7 P3d 738 , rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000) (holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally suffici 2007Consistent with those same purposes, Oregon courts do not require an indictment to charge a criminal offense with great specificity, relying instead on discovery “to inform the defendant of the details of the alleged crime that are necessary to be able to defend against the charge.” State v. Watson, 193 Or App 757, 761 , 91 P3d 765 , rev den, 337 Or 476 *43 (2004); see also State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 307 , 999 P2d 1220 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 169 Or App 78 , 7 P3d 738 , rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000) (holding that the availability of pretrial criminal discovery is generally suffici | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Smith
green
2 sentences1971United States v. Smith, 209 F Supp 907 (DC Ill 1962). 1971United States v. Smith, 209 F. Supp. 907 (DC Ill. 1962). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Gelardi
green
1 sentence1963(People v. Faust, 113 Cal 172 [ 45 Pac 261 ] ; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal 494 [ 111 Pac 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.” People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal App 2d 467, 175 P2d 855 , ruled as follows: “Next, it is claimed that the information is fatally defective in failing to name the person to whom the narcotics were sold. ‘This is a defect which must be raised by a special demurrer . . .’ (People v. Kinsley, supra) and, as held in that case, ‘even if appellant had pointed out the defect . . . by special d | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Gregory v. Diggs
neutral
2 sentences1963(People v. Faust, 113 Cal 172 [ 45 Pac 261 ] ; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal 494 [ 111 Pac 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.” People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal App 2d 467, 175 P2d 855 , ruled as follows: “Next, it is claimed that the information is fatally defective in failing to name the person to whom the narcotics were sold. ‘This is a defect which must be raised by a special demurrer . . .’ (People v. Kinsley, supra) and, as held in that case, ‘even if appellant had pointed out the defect . . . by special d 1963(People v. Faust, 113 Cal 172 [ 45 Pac 261 ] ; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal 494 [ 111 Pac 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.” People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal App 2d 467, 175 P2d 855 , ruled as follows: “Next, it is claimed that the information is fatally defective in failing to name the person to whom the narcotics were sold. ‘This is a defect which must be raised by a special demurrer . . .’ (People v. Kinsley, supra) and, as held in that case, ‘even if appellant had pointed out the defect . . . by special d | 1 | 1963–1963 |
People v. Malone
green
1 sentence1963(People v. Faust, 113 Cal 172 [ 45 Pac 261 ] ; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal 494 [ 111 Pac 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.” People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal App 2d 467, 175 P2d 855 , ruled as follows: “Next, it is claimed that the information is fatally defective in failing to name the person to whom the narcotics were sold. ‘This is a defect which must be raised by a special demurrer . . .’ (People v. Kinsley, supra) and, as held in that case, ‘even if appellant had pointed out the defect . . . by special d | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Ex Parte Hansen
green
1 sentence1963(People v. Faust, 113 Cal 172 [ 45 Pac 261 ] ; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal 494 [ 111 Pac 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.” People v. Gelardi, 77 Cal App 2d 467, 175 P2d 855 , ruled as follows: “Next, it is claimed that the information is fatally defective in failing to name the person to whom the narcotics were sold. ‘This is a defect which must be raised by a special demurrer . . .’ (People v. Kinsley, supra) and, as held in that case, ‘even if appellant had pointed out the defect . . . by special d | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.