132.557
Indictment must contain subcategory facts under certain circumstances. (1) When a person is charged with
a crime committed on or after November 1, 1989, that includes subcategories
under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, the state is
required to plead specially in the indictment, in addition to the elements of
the crime, any subcategory fact on which the state intends to rely to enhance
the crime for sentencing purposes. The state shall plead the elements and
subcategory facts in a single count. Nothing in this subsection precludes the
pleading of alternative theories.
(2) The state
must prove each subcategory fact beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury shall
return a special verdict of “yes” or “no” on each subcategory fact submitted. [1995
c.520 §6]
Note: 132.557 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 132
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
State v. Williams, 240 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Williams, 240 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “ORS 132.557 provides that subcategory facts must be pleaded in the indictment: “(1) When a person is charged with a crime committed on or after November 1, 1989, that includes subcategories under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, *380 the state is required to…”
State v. Dilts, 39 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“550(7), setting out, as one of several requirements relating to the content of an indictment, that it contain a “statement of the acts constituting the offense * * and to ORS 132.557, requiring that “offense subcategories” be pleaded in the indictment and proved beyond a…”
State v. Moore, 19 P.3d 911 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 132.557; 5 State v. O’Quinn, 151 Or App 168 , 947 P2d 1135 (1997).”
State v. O'QUINN, 947 P.2d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “” In this case, the allegation that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon is not charged as an element of the offense but is specially pled in accordance with ORS 132.557 2 as a subcategory fact for the purpose of enhancing the sentence.”
State v. Scott, 388 P.3d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“)); see also ORS 132.557 (requiring the state to plead “any subcategory fact on which the state intends to rely to enhance the crime for sentencing purposes”).”
State v. Bedford, 344 Or. App. 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “ORS 132.557(1). ORS 475.925(2)(c) then provides for a sentencing range equivalent to crime seriousness category of 9 if a per- son is convicted of the unlawful delivery * * * of a controlled substance involving, among other things, 50 grams or more of heroin.”
State v. Bedford, 344 Or. App. 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “ORS 132.557(1). ORS 475.925(2)(c) then provides for a sentencing range equivalent to crime seriousness category of 9 if a per- son is convicted of the unlawful delivery * * * of a controlled substance involving, among other things, 50 grams or more of heroin.”
State v. Hoard, 386 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“See ORS 132.557 (setting out pleading, proof, and special verdict requirements for subcategory facts on which state intends to rely at sentencing).”
Richards v. Brown, 345 Or. App. 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“”); ORS 132.557(2) (“The state must prove each subcategory fact beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury shall return a special verdict of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on each subcategory fact submitted.”
State v. Williams, 240 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “ORS 132.557 provides that subcategory facts must be pleaded in the indictment: "(1) When a person is charged with a crime committed on or after November 1, 1989, that includes subcategories under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, the state is required to plead…”
State v. Minter, 934 P.2d 585 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The parties discuss in their briefs ORS 132.557(1), which imposes pleading requirements in the indictment.”
State v. Sellards, 459 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “ORS 132.557(1) provides: “When a person is charged with a crime committed on or after November 1, 1989, that includes subcategories under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, the state is required to plead specially in the indictment, in addition to the elements…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.557(1) — 4 cases
State v. Bedford, 344 Or. App. 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“ORS 132.557(1). ORS 475.925(2)(c) then provides for a sentencing range equivalent to crime seriousness category of 9 if a per- son is convicted of the unlawful delivery * * * of a controlled substance involving, among other things, 50 grams or more of heroin.”
State v. Bedford, 344 Or. App. 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“ORS 132.557(1). ORS 475.925(2)(c) then provides for a sentencing range equivalent to crime seriousness category of 9 if a per- son is convicted of the unlawful delivery * * * of a controlled substance involving, among other things, 50 grams or more of heroin.”
State v. Minter, 934 P.2d 585 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The parties discuss in their briefs ORS 132.557(1), which imposes pleading requirements in the indictment.”
State v. Sellards, 459 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“ORS 132.557(1) provides: “When a person is charged with a crime committed on or after November 1, 1989, that includes subcategories under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, the state is required to plead specially in the indictment, in addition to the elements…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.557(2) — 3 cases
State v. O'QUINN, 947 P.2d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“” In this case, the allegation that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon is not charged as an element of the offense but is specially pled in accordance with ORS 132.557 2 as a subcategory fact for the purpose of enhancing the sentence.”
Richards v. Brown, 345 Or. App. 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“”); ORS 132.557(2) (“The state must prove each subcategory fact beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury shall return a special verdict of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on each subcategory fact submitted.”
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.