Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.430 (2026)

Finding against indictment; indorsement “not a true bill.”

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      132.430 Finding against indictment; indorsement “not a true bill.” (1) When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found “a true bill,” the indictment must be indorsed “not a true bill,” which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and filed with the clerk of the court, in whose office it shall remain a public record. In the case of an indictment not found “a true bill” against a person who has not been held to answer a criminal charge, the indictment must be destroyed by the grand jury.

      (2) When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect is to dismiss the charge, and the charge cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §54; 2017 c.650 §6]

 

(Other Inquiries)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: State v. Stokes, 248 P.3d 953 (Or. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stokes, 248 P.3d 953 (Or. 2011). · cites it 11× “First, he argues that the trial court erred, under ORS 132.430(2), 1 in allowing the state to resubmit the 1996 charges to a second grand jury.”
State v. Harwood, 609 P.2d 1312 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “" 2 ORS 132.430 states, in pertinent part: "(1) When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found 'a true bill,’ it must be indorsed hot a true bill,’ which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and filed with the…”
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “” In denying his motion to set aside the third indictment, the court ruled: “1) The indictment returned and filed April 19,1983, is a new and separate indictment and not an amendment of the indictment returned and filed April 18,1983.”
State v. Boots, 767 P.2d 450 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “1 Defendant’s argument is predicated on ORS 132.430. 2 That statute does not apply when the defendant has not been held to answer for a crime.”
State v. Gray, 515 P.3d 348 (Or. 2022). “ORS 132.430. Five grand jurors must concur to indict a defendant.”
Commonwealth v. McCravy, 723 N.E.2d 517 (Mass. 2000). “22, § 383 (1992); Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.430 (2) (1997); S.D.”
State v. Mitchell, 495 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1972). “” ORS 132.430 provides: “(1) When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found ‘a true bill,’ it must be indorsed ‘not a true bill,’ which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and presented to the court and filed…”
State v. Rankin, 536 P.2d 538 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “The Court further concludes that the prophylactic principle embodied in ORS 132.430 requires that the District Attorney show good cause for representing the matter to the Grand Jury.”
State v. Gonzales, 641 P.2d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “Defendant’s statutory contention is based on ORS 132.430: “(1) When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found ‘a true bill,’ it must be indorsed ‘not a true bill,’ which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.430(2) — 3 cases
State v. Stokes, 248 P.3d 953 (Or. 2011). “First, he argues that the trial court erred, under ORS 132.430(2), 1 in allowing the state to resubmit the 1996 charges to a second grand jury.”
State v. Harwood, 609 P.2d 1312 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “" 2 ORS 132.430 states, in pertinent part: "(1) When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found 'a true bill,’ it must be indorsed hot a true bill,’ which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and filed with the…”
State v. Gonzales, 641 P.2d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant’s statutory contention is based on ORS 132.430: “(1) When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found ‘a true bill,’ it must be indorsed ‘not a true bill,’ which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and…”
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.