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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.535 (2026)

Proceedings not constituting acquittal

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

      131.535 Proceedings not constituting acquittal. The following proceedings will not constitute an acquittal of the same offense:

      (1) If the defendant was formerly acquitted on the ground of a variance between the accusatory instrument and the proof; or

      (2) If the accusatory instrument was:

      (a) Dismissed upon a demurrer to its form or substance;

      (b) Dismissed upon any pretrial motion; or

      (c) Discharged for want of prosecution without a judgment of acquittal. [1973 c.836 §29; 2001 c.104 §43]

 

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1983–2013 · leading case: State v. Boots, 848 P.2d 76 (Or. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Boots, 848 P.2d 76 (Or. 1993). · cites it 2× “525 and ORS 131.535: "(1) No person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offense.”
State v. Thompson, 659 P.2d 383 (Or. 1983). ““(2) No person shall be separately prosecuted for two or more offenses based upon the same criminal episode, if the several offenses are reasonably known to the appropriate prosecutor at the time of commencement of the first prosecution and establish proper venue in a single…”
State v. McKenzie, 771 P.2d 264 (Or. 1989). “The court shall grant the motion if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant.”
State v. Wolfs, 826 P.2d 623 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “525 and ORS 131.535, the pertinent parts of which are the same as the current statutes.”
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “515 to ORS 131.535, as “continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment *531 of a single criminal objective.”
State v. Garcia, 704 P.2d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “ORS 131.535(1); 5 State v. Jones, 240 Or 546 , 402 P2d 738 (1965).”
State v. Bannister, 846 P.2d 1189 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “525 and ORS 131.535 codify some exceptions to former jeopardy.”
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “525 and ORS 131.535 have no bearing on the application of ORS 131.”
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “747, for lack of speedy trial, is a dismissal without prejudice 10 and does not address the merits and, thus, is not *412 tantamount to an acquittal, see generally ORS 131.535(2)(b) (providing that a dismissal of the accusatory instrument “upon any pretrial motion” “will not…”
State v. Helander, 758 P.2d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “” On January 7, 1987, the municipal court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on double jeopardy grounds, because, under ORS 131.535(1), an acquittal on the basis of a variance between the accusatory instrument and the proof does not constitute an acquittal for…”
State v. Salzmann, 850 P.2d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “505 to ORS 131.535. Article I, section 12, provides in part: “No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence [sic].”
State v. DeKuyper, 703 P.2d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Moreover, within ORS 131.535, when the legislature intended to limit a provision only to “crimes,” it did so expressly.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.535(1) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 704 P.2d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 131.535(1); 5 State v. Jones, 240 Or 546 , 402 P2d 738 (1965).”
State v. Helander, 758 P.2d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “” On January 7, 1987, the municipal court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on double jeopardy grounds, because, under ORS 131.535(1), an acquittal on the basis of a variance between the accusatory instrument and the proof does not constitute an acquittal for…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.535(2) — 1 case
State v. DeKuyper, 703 P.2d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “Moreover, within ORS 131.535, when the legislature intended to limit a provision only to “crimes,” it did so expressly.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.535(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. McKenzie, 771 P.2d 264 (Or. 1989). “The court shall grant the motion if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.535(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Ehrensing, 296 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “747, for lack of speedy trial, is a dismissal without prejudice 10 and does not address the merits and, thus, is not *412 tantamount to an acquittal, see generally ORS 131.535(2)(b) (providing that a dismissal of the accusatory instrument “upon any pretrial motion” “will not…”
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.