132.540
Sufficiency of indictment; previous convictions; use of statutory language;
when name of victim not required.
(1) The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that:
(a) The defendant
is named, or if the name of the defendant cannot be discovered, that the
defendant is described by a fictitious name, with the statement that the real
name of the defendant is to the jury unknown.
(b) The crime was
committed within the jurisdiction of the court, except where, as provided by
law, the act, though done without the county in which the court is held, is
triable therein.
(c) The crime was
committed at some time prior to the finding of the indictment and within the
time limited by law for the commencement of an action therefor.
(2) Except as
provided in ORS 136.765 (1) and subsection (3) of this section, the indictment
may not contain allegations that the defendant has previously been convicted of
the violation of any statute that may subject the defendant to enhanced
penalties.
(3) The
indictment must allege that the defendant has previously been convicted of an
offense when the previous conviction constitutes a material element of the
charged offense.
(4) Words used in
a statute to define a crime need not be strictly pursued in the indictment, but
other words conveying the same meaning may be used.
(5)(a) An
indictment may include a pseudonym, initials or another signifier instead of
the name of a victim if:
(A) At least one
of the crimes alleged to have been committed against the victim in the
indictment is a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005;
(B) A separate
document containing the name of the victim and the corresponding pseudonym,
initials or other signifier is filed with the clerk of the court at the same
time as the indictment is filed; and
(C) A copy of the
document described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph is provided to the
defense attorney or, if the defendant does not have a lawyer, in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this subsection, at the time of arraignment on the
indictment.
(b) The defense
attorney may orally inform the defendant of the name of the victim contained in
the document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection but may not
provide a copy of the document to the defendant.
(c) If a
defendant is not represented by a lawyer, the district attorney shall provide a
copy of the document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection to the
defendant. At the time of providing the document, the court shall enter an
order prohibiting the defendant from copying the document or providing the
document to any other person.
(d) The document
described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection is confidential with respect
to any person who is not a party to the case. At any time during the proceeding
the court may, upon a finding of good cause, order that the document is not
confidential. Once the final judgment on the case is entered, the document is
no longer confidential. [Amended by 1957 c.657 §1; 1973 c.836 §57; 2009 c.180 §1;
2019 c.338 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
59
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case:
State v. Reynolds
State v. Reynolds (2002)
orctapp · cites it 10×
“Therefore, the state argued, the allegations are material and not subject to the prohibition of ORS 132.540. *249 The trial court concluded that defendant was correct in asserting that the existence of a prior conviction is not a material element of the offenses charged and…”
State v. Hoover (1959)
or · cites it 6×
“As a further part of his second assignment of error appellant alleges that the indictment did not substantially conform to the requirements of ORS 132.540 and 132.570 and hence that the demurrer should also have been sustained on that ground.”
State v. Upton (2005)
or · cites it 3×
“To the extent that defendant is arguing that he is not permitted to counter or rebut the state’s “aggravation” evidence before a jury, he is incorrect; nothing in SB 528 precludes a defendant from fully litigating any issue of fact properly before the jury.”
State v. Garrett (2003)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“He contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his demurrer to the indictment on the ground that the indictment violated ORS 132.540 by alleging that he had previously been convicted of the same offense against the same victim.”
State v. Crampton (2001)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“Rather, under ORS 132.540(3), “[w]ords used in a statute to define a crime need not be strictly pursued in the indictment, but other words conveying the same meaning may be used.”
State v. Wimber (1992)
or · cites it 2×
“As amended, counts 10, 11, and 12 of the indictment complied with the time requirements of ORS 132.540: "(1) The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that: "* * * * * *432 "(c) The crime was committed at some time prior to the finding of the indictment and…”
State v. Kyger (2022)
or · cites it 2×
“7 ORS 132.540 has been amended since defendant committed the crime.”
State v. Wilcox (1959)
or · cites it 6×
“530 and ORS 132.540 in that it contained two allegations which were in the alternative and charged two different crimes.”
State v. Jim (1973)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“” ORS 132.540 provides: “(1) The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that: * * “(f) The act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of…”
State v. Warren (2018)
or
“See ORS 132.540(1) (specifying that an "indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that: (a) The defendant is named, or if the name of the defendant cannot be discovered, that the defendant is described by a fictitious name"); The Codes and General Laws of…”
State v. Cohen (1980)
or · cites it 2×
“" Under ORS 132.540(3): "Words used in a statute to define a crime need not be strictly pursued in the indictment, but other words conveying the same meaning may be used.”
State v. Nistler (2015)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“ORS 132.540(1). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s demurrer on the five aggravated first-degree theft charges that alleged dates outside of the statute of limitations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(1) — 11 cases
State v. Warren (2018)
or
“See ORS 132.540(1) (specifying that an "indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that: (a) The defendant is named, or if the name of the defendant cannot be discovered, that the defendant is described by a fictitious name"); The Codes and General Laws of…”
State v. Jim (1973)
orctapp
“” ORS 132.540 provides: “(1) The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that: * * “(f) The act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of…”
State v. Nistler (2015)
orctapp
“ORS 132.540(1). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s demurrer on the five aggravated first-degree theft charges that alleged dates outside of the statute of limitations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(1)(c) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(1)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(2) — 8 cases
State v. Reynolds (2002)
orctapp
“Therefore, the state argued, the allegations are material and not subject to the prohibition of ORS 132.540. *249 The trial court concluded that defendant was correct in asserting that the existence of a prior conviction is not a material element of the offenses charged and…”
State v. Upton (2005)
or
“To the extent that defendant is arguing that he is not permitted to counter or rebut the state’s “aggravation” evidence before a jury, he is incorrect; nothing in SB 528 precludes a defendant from fully litigating any issue of fact properly before the jury.”
State v. Garrett (2003)
orctapp
“He contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his demurrer to the indictment on the ground that the indictment violated ORS 132.540 by alleging that he had previously been convicted of the same offense against the same victim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(3) — 10 cases
State v. Crampton (2001)
orctapp
“Rather, under ORS 132.540(3), “[w]ords used in a statute to define a crime need not be strictly pursued in the indictment, but other words conveying the same meaning may be used.”
State v. Cohen (1980)
or
“" Under ORS 132.540(3): "Words used in a statute to define a crime need not be strictly pursued in the indictment, but other words conveying the same meaning may be used.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(4) — 3 cases
State v. Kyger (2022)
or
“7 ORS 132.540 has been amended since defendant committed the crime.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(5)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(f) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(l)(c) — 6 cases
State v. Nistler (2015)
orctapp
“ORS 132.540(1). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s demurrer on the five aggravated first-degree theft charges that alleged dates outside of the statute of limitations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.540(l)(f) — 1 case
State v. Reynolds (2002)
orctapp
“Therefore, the state argued, the allegations are material and not subject to the prohibition of ORS 132.540. *249 The trial court concluded that defendant was correct in asserting that the existence of a prior conviction is not a material element of the offenses charged 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.