Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.010

Composition

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      132.010 Composition. A grand jury is a body of seven persons drawn from the jurors in attendance upon the circuit court at a particular jury service term, having the qualifications prescribed by ORS 10.030 and sworn to inquire of crimes committed or triable within the county from which they are selected. [Amended by 1985 c.703 §22]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State v. Hutchinson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hutchinson (2000) orctapp · cites it 9× “]” The legislature has provided for the selection and qualification of grand jurors in ORS 132.010, which states: “A grand jury is a body of seven persons drawn from the jurors in attendance upon the circuit court at a particular jury service term, having the qualifications…”
Goodwin v. State of Oregon (1992) orctapp · cites it 2× “[1] The legislative commentary to the Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code, 39-40, notes: "ORS 132.010, accordingly, states that a grand jury is a body of seven persons.”
State v. Haji (2020) or “” ORS 132.010. The description of the grand jury’s duties and procedures is primarily con- tained within ORS 132.”
State v. Gray (2022) or “Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 5(2); ORS 132.010. The crimes may be submitted to the grand jury by the dis- trict attorney, ORS 132.”
State v. Burleson (2007) or “” ORS 132.010. “The district attorney shall institute proceedings before magistrates for the arrest of persons charged with or reasonably suspected of public offenses, when the district attorney has information that any such offense has been committed, and attend upon and advise…”
State v. Gortmaker (1983) or “220(1) provides in relevant part: “For the circuit court, 40 names shall be drawn, from which number the grand jurors and trial jurors for the term are selected as provided by law.”
State v. King (1987) orctapp “However, in addition to relying on constitutional grounds, defendant’s motion to quash also expressly relied on statutory grounds for grand jury membership, i.”
State v. Dillenburg (1980) orctapp “1 Because, under defendant’s theory, the grand jury of Marion County did not have the authority to indict him, see ORS 132.010, the motion for change of venue would not appear to be appropriate.”
State v. Wall (2025) or “050 (requiring the court to appoint a foreman and an alternate foreman of the grand jury); ORS 132.”
State v. Wall (2025) or “050 (requiring the court to appoint a foreman and an alternate foreman of the grand jury); ORS 132.”
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.