Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.355 (2026)

Change of venue for prejudice

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      131.355 Change of venue for prejudice. The court, upon motion of the defendant, shall order the place of trial to be changed to another county if the court is satisfied that there exists in the county where the action is commenced so great a prejudice against the defendant that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial. [1973 c.836 §19]

 

      131.360 [Amended by 1973 c.743 §317; repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: State v. Pratt, 853 P.2d 827 (Or. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pratt, 853 P.2d 827 (Or. 1993). · cites it 6× “Change of Venue Before jury selection began, defendant moved for a change of venue pursuant to ORS 131.355. [4] The court denied the motion, and defendant assigns that ruling as error.”
State v. Fanus, 79 P.3d 847 (Or. 2003). · cites it 4× “” 16 Defendant argues that, under ORS 131.355, a trial court must grant a motion for change of venue when there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial pretrial publicity will prevent the defendant from obtaining a fair and impartial *77 trial in the county in which the…”
State v. Sparks, 83 P.3d 304 (Or. 2004). · cites it 2× “” Defendant argues that prejudicial pretrial publicity made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Yamhill County and that holding the trial in that venue violated his rights under ORS 131.355 and under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth…”
State v. Langley, 839 P.2d 692 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “The articles reported defendant's criminal history and opinions about his future dangerousness, as well as facts of both homicides and other details of defendant's earlier trial, conviction, and sentencing.”
State v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 1308 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “He argues that prejudicial pretrial publicity made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial, thus violating his rights under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Barone, 986 P.2d 5 (Or. 1999). “*219 ORS 131.355 governs changes of venue for prejudice and provides: “The court, upon motion of the defendant, shall order the place of trial to be changed to another county if the court is satisfied that there exists in the county where the action is commenced so great a…”
McDonnell v. Premo, 483 P.3d 640 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “In assignments twenty-four through twenty-six, petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in rejecting petitioner’s claims that trial counsel in 1988 and 2002 were inadequate and ineffective for not litigating a motion for change of venue.”
State v. Herrera, 574 P.2d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “" [4] Defendant did not cite ORS 131.355 in support of his motion although it was framed in terms of "prejudice" and argued as such based upon newspaper coverage of the incident.”
State v. Schroeder, 640 P.2d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “He introduced copies of the newspaper articles and video tapes of the television newscasts concerning arrest of the “masked rapist,” as well as the results of a public opinion survey and affidavits from 32 area attorneys.”
State v. Jackson, 655 P.2d 592 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “" See ORS 131.355. The trial court denied the motion after making the following findings of fact: "1.”
State v. Darnall, 614 P.2d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “CHANGE OF VENUE Defendant moved for a change of venue pursuant to ORS 131.355, alleging that the press coverage and the nature of the crime created such a prejudicial impact on potential jurors in Douglas County that a fair trial was impossible in that jurisdiction.”
State v. Smith, 648 P.2d 1294 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Defendant eventually made statements to police regarding his involvement in the murders. He was convicted in this case after a jury trial of murder, felony murder and first degree burglary; he was sentenced only on the murder and burglary convictions.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.