Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.370

Presentment of facts to court for instruction as to law

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

      132.370 Presentment of facts to court for instruction as to law. (1) When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a crime in law or whether the same has ceased to be punishable by reason of lapse of time or a former acquittal or conviction, it may make a presentment of the facts to the court, without mentioning the names of individuals, and ask the court for instructions concerning the law arising thereon.

      (2) A presentment cannot be found and made to the court except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, and, when so found and presented, the court shall give such instructions to the grand jury concerning the law of the case as it thinks proper and necessary.

      (3) A presentment is made to the court by the foreman in the presence of the grand jury. But being a mere formal statement of facts for the purpose of obtaining the advice of the court as to the law arising thereon, it is not to be filed in court or preserved beyond the sitting of the grand jury.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: State v. Pratt
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pratt (1993) or · cites it 2× “360 provides: "A grand jury may indict or present facts to the court for instruction as provided in ORS 132.370, with the concurrence of five of its members, if at least five jurors voting for indictment or presentment heard all the testimony relating to the person indicted or…”
State v. Wimber (1992) or · cites it 2× “That a particular crime was committed within the applicable statute of limitations is a matter of substance is reflected in ORS 132.370, which provides: "(1) When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a crime in law or…”
Goodwin v. State of Oregon (1992) orctapp · cites it 2× “360: "A grand jury may indict or present to the court for instruction as provided in ORS 132.370, with the concurrence of five of its members, if at least five jurors voting for indictment or presentment heard all the testimony relating to the person indicted or facts presented.”
State v. Haji (2020) or “t addressed to each offense charged, if there be more than one; “(5) A statement in each count that the offense charged therein was committed in a designated county; “(6) A statement in each count that the offense charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated…”
State v. Wall (2025) or · cites it 2× “See ORS 132.370(1) (“When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a 414 State v.”
State v. Mitchell (1972) orctapp “360 provides: “A grand jury may indict or present a person, or present facts to the court for instruction as provided in ORS 132.370, with the concurrence of five of its members, and not otherwise.”
State v. Wall (2025) or · cites it 2× “See ORS 132.370(1) (“When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a 414 State v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.370(1) — 3 cases
State v. Haji (2020) or “t addressed to each offense charged, if there be more than one; “(5) A statement in each count that the offense charged therein was committed in a designated county; “(6) A statement in each count that the offense charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated…”
State v. Wall (2025) or “See ORS 132.370(1) (“When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a 414 State v.”
State v. Wall (2025) or “See ORS 132.370(1) (“When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a 414 State v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.370(3) — 2 cases
State v. Wall (2025) or “See ORS 132.370(1) (“When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a 414 State v.”
State v. Wall (2025) or “See ORS 132.370(1) (“When the grand jury is in doubt whether the facts, as shown by the evidence before it, constitute a 414 State v.”
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.