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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560 (2026)

Joinder of counts and charges; consolidation of charging instruments

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

      132.560 Joinder of counts and charges; consolidation of charging instruments. (1) A charging instrument must charge but one offense, and in one form only, except that:

      (a) Where the offense may be committed by the use of different means, the charging instrument may allege the means in the alternative.

      (b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed by the same person or persons and are:

      (A) Of the same or similar character;

      (B) Based on the same act or transaction; or

      (C) Based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.

      (2) If two or more charging instruments are found in circumstances described in subsection (1)(b) of this section, the court may order them to be consolidated.

      (3) If it appears, upon motion, that the state or defendant is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of offenses under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts or provide whatever other relief justice requires.

      (4) As used in this section, “charging instrument” means any written instrument sufficient under the law to charge a person with an offense, and shall include, but not be limited to, grand jury indictments, informations, complaints and uniform traffic, game or boating complaints. [Amended by 1989 c.842 §1; 1993 c.278 §1; 1999 c.1040 §17]

 

      132.570 [Renumbered 135.713]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 181 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). · cites it 52× “The indictment did not allege that the offenses were related in any of the three ways required by the joinder statute, ORS 132.560. That is, it did not allege that they were "[o]f the same or similar character," "[b]ased on the same act or transaction," or "[b]ased on two or…”
State v. Delaney, 522 P.3d 855 (Or. 2022). · cites it 38× “When L accepted the ride, defendant instead drove L 1 ORS 132.560 does not prescribe a procedure for trial courts to follow when considering a motion to sever joined charges.”
State v. Poston, 370 P.3d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 20× “Defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground that the indictment failed to comply with ORS 132.560, which specifies the circumstances in which an indictment may charge more than one offense.”
State v. Dewhitt, 368 P.3d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 26× “Those offenses were charged in separate charging instruments that were joined for trial under ORS 132.560. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred both in joining the charging instruments and also in denying his motion to sever them.”
State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2020). · cites it 28× “Held: (1) ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury to allege the statutory basis for joinder of multiple charges in an indictment; (2) Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), of the Oregon Constitution permits a district attorney to amend an indictment that is defective in form; a…”
State v. Meyer, 820 P.2d 861 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 54× “560(3) by denying defendant's motion for severance; and application of ORS 132.560 to these traffic complaints violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
State v. Miller, 969 P.2d 1006 (Or. 1998). · cites it 28× “ORS 132.560 (1991) 2 provided, in part: “(1) The indictment must charge but one crime, and in one form only, except that: *625 “(b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same accusatory instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged * * * are…”
State v. Hernandez-Esteban, 374 Or. 300 (Or. 2025). · cites it 23× “Although defendant conceded that joinder was permissible under ORS 132.560 (1)(b)(A)—because each of the charges was “[o]f the same or similar character” as the others—he asserted that the join- der of the two sets of charges substantially prejudiced his interests in a fair…”
State v. Poston, 399 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “The state has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in this case in which we held that ORS 132.560 requires the state to allege in a charging instrument the basis for joinder of the crimes charged in it.”
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 18× “At the same trial, defendant was tried on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm and on a drug manufacturing charge, the latter based on a marijuana growing operation that police found in his apartment three weeks after the murder.”
Delgado-Juarez v. Cain, 475 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 22× “We recognize that we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that the joinder of charges involving multiple victims does not, in the absence of other circumstances, prejudice a defendant within the meaning of the joinder statute, ORS 132.560. E.g., Miller, 327 Or at 629…”
State v. Strouse, 366 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “ORS 132.560 frames our consideration. That statute provides, in relevant part: “(1) A charging instrument must charge but one offense, and in one form only, except that: *400 «* * :|: * ‡ “(b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate…”
Show all 181 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(1) — 36 cases
State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2020). “Held: (1) ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury to allege the statutory basis for joinder of multiple charges in an indictment; (2) Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), of the Oregon Constitution permits a district attorney to amend an indictment that is defective in form; a…”
State v. Dewhitt, 368 P.3d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Those offenses were charged in separate charging instruments that were joined for trial under ORS 132.560. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred both in joining the charging instruments and also in denying his motion to sever them.”
State v. Brown, 531 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Delaney, 522 P.3d 855 (Or. 2022). “When L accepted the ride, defendant instead drove L 1 ORS 132.560 does not prescribe a procedure for trial courts to follow when considering a motion to sever joined charges.”
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). “The indictment did not allege that the offenses were related in any of the three ways required by the joinder statute, ORS 132.560. That is, it did not allege that they were "[o]f the same or similar character," "[b]ased on the same act or transaction," or "[b]ased on two or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Taylor, 434 P.3d 331 (Or. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(1)(b) — 28 cases
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). “The indictment did not allege that the offenses were related in any of the three ways required by the joinder statute, ORS 132.560. That is, it did not allege that they were "[o]f the same or similar character," "[b]ased on the same act or transaction," or "[b]ased on two or…”
State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2020). “Held: (1) ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury to allege the statutory basis for joinder of multiple charges in an indictment; (2) Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), of the Oregon Constitution permits a district attorney to amend an indictment that is defective in form; a…”
State v. Gialloreto, 457 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Buck, 566 P.3d 682 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Hernandez-Esteban, 374 Or. 300 (Or. 2025). “Although defendant conceded that joinder was permissible under ORS 132.560 (1)(b)(A)—because each of the charges was “[o]f the same or similar character” as the others—he asserted that the join- der of the two sets of charges substantially prejudiced his interests in a fair…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(1)(b)(A) — 36 cases
State v. Gialloreto, 457 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Garrett, 455 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2020). “Held: (1) ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury to allege the statutory basis for joinder of multiple charges in an indictment; (2) Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), of the Oregon Constitution permits a district attorney to amend an indictment that is defective in form; a…”
State v. Taylor, 434 P.3d 331 (Or. 2019).
State v. Sheikh-Nur, 398 P.3d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(1)(b)(B) — 9 cases
State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2020). “Held: (1) ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury to allege the statutory basis for joinder of multiple charges in an indictment; (2) Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), of the Oregon Constitution permits a district attorney to amend an indictment that is defective in form; a…”
State v. Gialloreto, 457 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Hagberg, 190 P.3d 1209 (Or. 2008).
State v. Keith, 431 P.3d 94 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Dallavis, 432 P.3d 282 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(1)(b)(C) — 17 cases
State v. Smith, 481 P.3d 363 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Keith, 431 P.3d 94 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Poston, 370 P.3d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground that the indictment failed to comply with ORS 132.560, which specifies the circumstances in which an indictment may charge more than one offense.”
State v. Poston, 399 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “The state has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in this case in which we held that ORS 132.560 requires the state to allege in a charging instrument the basis for joinder of the crimes charged in it.”
State v. Gialloreto, 457 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(2) — 60 cases
State v. Meyer, 820 P.2d 861 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “560(3) by denying defendant's motion for severance; and application of ORS 132.560 to these traffic complaints violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). “The indictment did not allege that the offenses were related in any of the three ways required by the joinder statute, ORS 132.560. That is, it did not allege that they were "[o]f the same or similar character," "[b]ased on the same act or transaction," or "[b]ased on two or…”
State v. Buck, 566 P.3d 682 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Jones, 55 P.3d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Sheikh-Nur, 398 P.3d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(3) — 70 cases
State v. Delaney, 522 P.3d 855 (Or. 2022). “When L accepted the ride, defendant instead drove L 1 ORS 132.560 does not prescribe a procedure for trial courts to follow when considering a motion to sever joined charges.”
State v. Miller, 969 P.2d 1006 (Or. 1998). “ORS 132.560 (1991) 2 provided, in part: “(1) The indictment must charge but one crime, and in one form only, except that: *625 “(b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same accusatory instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged * * * are…”
Delgado-Juarez v. Cain, 475 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “We recognize that we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that the joinder of charges involving multiple victims does not, in the absence of other circumstances, prejudice a defendant within the meaning of the joinder statute, ORS 132.560. E.g., Miller, 327 Or at 629…”
State v. Hernandez-Esteban, 374 Or. 300 (Or. 2025). “Although defendant conceded that joinder was permissible under ORS 132.560 (1)(b)(A)—because each of the charges was “[o]f the same or similar character” as the others—he asserted that the join- der of the two sets of charges substantially prejudiced his interests in a fair…”
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(4) — 1 case
State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2020). “Held: (1) ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury to allege the statutory basis for joinder of multiple charges in an indictment; (2) Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), of the Oregon Constitution permits a district attorney to amend an indictment that is defective in form; a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(l)(b) — 11 cases
State v. Miller, 401 P.3d 229 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “At the same trial, defendant was tried on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm and on a drug manufacturing charge, the latter based on a marijuana growing operation that police found in his apartment three weeks after the murder.”
State v. Dimmick, 273 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Dewhitt, 368 P.3d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Those offenses were charged in separate charging instruments that were joined for trial under ORS 132.560. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred both in joining the charging instruments and also in denying his motion to sever them.”
State v. Clardy, 401 P.3d 1188 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(l)(b)(A) — 19 cases
State v. Buyes, 382 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Leistiko, 282 P.3d 857 (Or. 2012).
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “At the same trial, defendant was tried on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm and on a drug manufacturing charge, the latter based on a marijuana growing operation that police found in his apartment three weeks after the murder.”
State v. Strouse, 366 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 132.560 frames our consideration. That statute provides, in relevant part: “(1) A charging instrument must charge but one offense, and in one form only, except that: *400 «* * :|: * ‡ “(b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate…”
State v. Prieto-Rubio, 376 P.3d 255 (Or. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(l)(b)(B) — 8 cases
State v. Dewhitt, 368 P.3d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Those offenses were charged in separate charging instruments that were joined for trial under ORS 132.560. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred both in joining the charging instruments and also in denying his motion to sever them.”
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “At the same trial, defendant was tried on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm and on a drug manufacturing charge, the latter based on a marijuana growing operation that police found in his apartment three weeks after the murder.”
Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Knight, 981 P.2d 819 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.560(l)(b)(C) — 7 cases
State v. Dewhitt, 368 P.3d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Those offenses were charged in separate charging instruments that were joined for trial under ORS 132.560. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred both in joining the charging instruments and also in denying his motion to sever them.”
State v. Strouse, 366 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 132.560 frames our consideration. That statute provides, in relevant part: “(1) A charging instrument must charge but one offense, and in one form only, except that: *400 «* * :|: * ‡ “(b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate…”
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “At the same trial, defendant was tried on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm and on a drug manufacturing charge, the latter based on a marijuana growing operation that police found in his apartment three weeks after the murder.”
State v. Marks, 400 P.3d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Wittwer, 166 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
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.