Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.035 (2026)
When departures, errors or mistakes in pleadings or proceedings are material
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
131.035 When departures, errors or mistakes in pleadings or proceedings are material. No departure from the form or mode prescribed by law, error or mistake in any criminal pleading, action or proceeding renders it invalid, unless it has prejudiced the defendant in respect to a substantial right. [1973 c.836 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Dulfu, 426 P.3d 641 (Or. 2018).
State v. Dulfu, 426 P.3d 641 (Or. 2018). “VII (Amended), § 3 (stating that this court shall affirm a judgment, notwithstanding any error in the trial, if the court is of the opinion that the judgment "was such as should have been rendered in the case"); ORS 131.035 (providing that no error in a criminal proceeding…”
State v. Freeman, 873 P.2d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “See also ORS 131.035. 6 *646 Because of our disposition, we need not address whether the court abused its discretion in dismissing the citation with prejudice.”
State v. Atkinson, 562 P.2d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 131.035 applies to pleadings in the form of a uniform traffic citation and complaint; it provides: "No departure from the form or mode prescribed by law, error or mistake in any criminal pleading, action or proceeding renders it invalid, unless it has prejudiced the…”
State v. French, 145 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “See ORS 131.035. The state argues that defendant has failed to show prejudice because the trial court previously considered and rejected defendant’s objection to the imposition of a consecutive sentence.”
State v. Martinez, 698 P.2d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “See ORS 131.035; 2 Art I, § 11, Oregon Constitution.”
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 P.2d 1109 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 131.035; see Vaughan v. Taylor, 79 Or App 359 , 718 P2d 1387 , rev den 301 Or 445 (1986).”
State v. Monaco, 375 Or. 1 (Or. 2026). “)); see also ORS 131.035 (error is grounds for reversal of criminal conviction only if it “has prejudiced the defendant in respect to a substantial right”); State v.”
State v. Villeda (Or. 2024). “We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause, but we conclude that the error did not prejudice the defendant “in respect to a substantial right” as required for reversal under ORS 131.035. As explained…”
State v. Villeda (Or. 2024). “We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause, but we conclude that the error did not prejudice the defendant “in respect to a substantial right” as required for reversal under ORS 131.035. As explained…”
State v. Robison, 227 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 131.035 provides, “No departure from the form or mode prescribed by law, error or mistake in any criminal pleading, action or proceeding renders it invalid, unless it has prejudiced the defendant in respect to a substantial right.”
State v. Dawson, 284 P.3d 1272 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “” See ORS 131.035. Deciding whether the court’s failure to allow a sentencing delay in this case caused such prejudice requires an examination of the record in light of the nature and purposes of the statutory right.”
City of Portland v. Ledwidge, 622 P.2d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “” ORS 131.035. 3 Defendant maintains that the trial court was correct in holding that the ordinance was unconstitutional.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.