Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.390

When the grand jury may indict

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

      132.390 When the grand jury may indict. The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §51]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2022 · leading case: State v. Clark
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Clark (1981) or · cites it 2× “320(4); and it may find an indictment upon the apparent strength of prosecution evidence "if unexplained or uncontradicted," although the defendant had no opportunity to test, explain, or contradict the evidence.”
State v. Shaw (1984) orctapp · cites it 3× “ORS 132.390 provides: “The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.”
State v. Gray (2022) or “” ORS 132.390. If the grand jury decides to indict, then it endorses the indictment as a “true bill.”
State v. Stout (1988) or · cites it 2× “It is clear, moreover, that an indictment cannot be set aside on the ground that the grand jury did not hear sufficient evidence to justify the charge, in violation of ORS 132.390. 3 State v. Broadhurst, supra; State v.”
Bekins v. Cupp (1976) or “” ORS 132.390. This is a more demanding requirement than reasonable suspicion; however, the consequences of failing to segregate can be so much more drastic.”
State v. Harwood (1980) orctapp “ORS 132.390. Therefore, the prosecution need not present evidence which merely explains or contradicts, only that which objectively refutes the facts as they appear from the state’s evidence.”
State v. McDonald (1961) or “ORS 132.390 provides: “The grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.”
State Ex Rel. Connall v. Roth (1971) or “The plaintiff herein relies on the same reasoning and contends that we must presume the grand jury followed the statutory mandate contained in ORS 132.390 requiring it to return an indictment “when all of the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would,…”
State v. Walley (1969) orctapp “390, The second contention is that the sentence of five years “* * * Was rendered excessive when the Corrections Division of the Oregon State Board of Control sent him to the Oregon State Penitentiary to serve his sentence * * At the time of sentence the following took place:…”
Kellotat v. Cupp (1986) orctapp “380 to ORS 132.390; ORS 135.070 to ORS 135.185. In Clark and Edmonson , the court held that the coexistence of the two procedures, in and of itself, does not violate an accused’s equal privileges guarantees so long as the choice of procedure is not administered “purely…”
State v. Miller (1981) orctapp “320(4); and defendant’s interpretation of these attempts is undermined by the grand jury’s return of an indictment without the exemplars.”
State v. Ingberg (1983) orctapp “380; ORS 132.390, or by a district attorney’s information filed in circuit court after a showing of probable cause in a preliminary hearing before a magistrate.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.