132.110 When
juror discharged; replacement; proceeding with lesser number. After the formation of the grand
jury and before it is discharged, the court may:
(1) Discharge a
grand juror who:
(a) Becomes sick,
is out of the county or fails to appear when the grand jury is summoned to
reconvene;
(b) Is related,
by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree, to the accused who is
under investigation by the grand jury, or held for the commission of a crime;
or
(c) Is unable to
continue in the discharge of duties.
(2) Order that
another person be drawn at random and sworn from the jurors then in attendance
upon the court, or if no other jurors are there in attendance, from the master
jury list of the county, to take the place of a discharged juror.
(3) Allow at
least five grand jurors to proceed upon good cause shown. [Amended by 1973
c.836 §41; 1985 c.703 §25]
Notes of Decisions
Goodwin v. State of Oregon, 840 P.2d 1372 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 20× “To support that contention, it relies on the Oregon Constitution and ORS 132.”
State v. Conger, 878 P.2d 1089 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 22× “We therefore consider whether a violation of ORS 132.110 that does not amount to a constitutional violation provides a basis for defendants to challenge their indictments.”
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Defendant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the grand jury had consisted of only six persons, in violation of his rights under Article VII (amended), section 5, paragraph 2 of the Oregon Constitution 2 and ORS 132.110. 3 Although an indictment had been *168…”
State v. Conger, 866 P.2d 469 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Although seven grand jurors had been selected, one of the seven had been excused by the trial court, pursuant to ORS 132.110, when the indictments in these cases were issued.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.110(2) — 1 case
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“Defendant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the grand jury had consisted of only six persons, in violation of his rights under Article VII (amended), section 5, paragraph 2 of the Oregon Constitution 2 and ORS 132.110. 3 Although an indictment had been *168…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.110(3) — 2 cases
Goodwin v. State of Oregon, 840 P.2d 1372 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“To support that contention, it relies on the Oregon Constitution and ORS 132.”
State v. Conger, 878 P.2d 1089 (Or. 1994).
“We therefore consider whether a violation of ORS 132.110 that does not amount to a constitutional violation provides a basis for defendants to challenge their indictments.”
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.