132.020
Selection of grand juries; law applicable to additional jury; when inquiry
void. (1) Under
the direction of the court, the clerk shall draw names at random from the names
of jurors in attendance upon the court until the names of seven jurors are
drawn and accepted by the court. The seven persons thus chosen shall constitute
the grand jury.
(2) When the
court, in its discretion, considers that one or more additional grand juries is
needed for the administration of justice, one or more additional grand juries
shall be selected in the manner provided in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Any law
applicable to the grand jury is equally applicable to any additional grand jury
selected under subsection (2) of this section, except that whenever any duties
or functions are imposed upon the grand jury, it shall be sufficient if such
duties or functions are performed by one of the grand juries selected under
this section.
(4) Any inquiry
or investigation required by law to be made by a grand jury shall be void,
unless such inquiry or investigation was made entirely by the same grand jury. [Amended
by 1959 c.59 §1; 1985 c.703 §23]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Oregon City Elks Lodge No. 1189, 520 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 10× “*127 Defendant’s motion to set aside the indictment was based on ORS 132.020 (4) which provides: “Any inquiry or investigation required by law to be made by a grand jury shall be void, unless such inquiry or investigation was made entirely by the same grand jury.”
State v. Gortmaker, 655 P.2d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Recognition of this risk may be implicit in ORS 132.020(1), see n. 4, supra, which provides that "the seven persons thus chosen shall constitute the grand jury.”
State v. Gortmaker, 668 P.2d 354 (Or. 1983).
“We find no statute which has taken advantage of the alternative procedure authorized in that section and therefore we conclude that the grand jury which the court found to have been duly impaneled during the May 1956 term was chosen under the provisions of ORS 132.020. That…”
Pinnell v. Palmateer, 114 P.3d 515 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Trial and appellate counsels’ failure to move to dismiss indictment Petitioner argues that both his trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally inadequate for their failure to move to have the indictments against him dismissed as void under ORS 132.020(4). According to…”
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“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. McReynolds, 319 P.2d 905 (Or. 1957).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 132.020. It is further provided that : “When the business of the grand jury is completed it must be discharged by the court; but the judge may, by an order made either in open court or at chambers anywhere in his district and entered in the journal, stating the reasons,…”
State v. Wall, 374 Or. 407 (Or. 2025).
“050 (requiring the court to appoint a foreman and an alternate foreman of the grand jury); ORS 132.”
State v. Wall, 374 Or. 407 (Or. 2025).
“050 (requiring the court to appoint a foreman and an alternate foreman of the grand jury); ORS 132.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.020(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gortmaker, 655 P.2d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“Recognition of this risk may be implicit in ORS 132.020(1), see n. 4, supra, which provides that "the seven persons thus chosen shall constitute the grand jury.”
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“However, in addition to relying on constitutional grounds, defendant’s motion to quash also expressly relied on statutory grounds for grand jury membership, i.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.020(4) — 1 case
Pinnell v. Palmateer, 114 P.3d 515 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Trial and appellate counsels’ failure to move to dismiss indictment Petitioner argues that both his trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally inadequate for their failure to move to have the indictments against him dismissed as void under ORS 132.020(4). According to…”
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.