135.060
Informing defendant as to use of name in accusatory instrument; effect of
acknowledging true name at arraignment. (1) When the defendant is arraigned, the defendant
shall be informed that:
(a) If the name
by which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument is not the true
name of the defendant the defendant must then declare the true name; and
(b) If the
defendant does not declare the true name as required by paragraph (a) of this
subsection, the defendant is ineligible for any form of release other than a
security release under ORS 135.265.
(2) The defendant
or the attorney for the defendant may acknowledge the true name of the
defendant at arraignment and the acknowledgment may not be used against the
defendant at trial on the underlying charge or any other criminal charge or
fugitive complaint except that:
(a) The use of
different names can be used in determining the defendant’s release status if
the defendant has used different names in different proceedings; and
(b) A defendant
who intentionally falsifies the defendant’s name under this section or ORS
135.065 while under oath or affirmation is subject to prosecution under ORS
162.065.
(3) As used in
this section and ORS 135.065, “true name” means:
(a) The name on
the defendant’s certified copy of the record of live birth;
(b) The defendant’s
birth name; or
(c) If the
defendant’s name has been changed by court order or by operation of law, the
name as changed by court order or operation of law. [Formerly 135.340; 2003
c.645 §4; 2013 c.366 §64]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case:
State v. Pedersen, 566 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Pedersen, 566 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 9× “In the alternative, we reasoned that it was a critical stage because the defendant was called upon to state his name, which we said has “seri- ous consequences” under ORS 135.060. Id. at 426 . The Supreme Court vacated our opinion in Brooks based on the guilty verdicts having…”
State v. Brooks, 456 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“ORS 135.060 provides that: “When the defendant is arraigned, the defendant shall be informed that: “(a) If the name by which the defendant is charged in the accusatory instrument is not the true name of the defendant the defendant must then declare the true name; and “(b) If the…”
State v. Murr, 295 P.3d 122 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“ORS 135.060(2). When a citation without a complaint issues, a “complaint or information may be filed with the court before or after the issuance.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.060(1) — 1 case
State v. Pedersen, 566 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In the alternative, we reasoned that it was a critical stage because the defendant was called upon to state his name, which we said has “seri- ous consequences” under ORS 135.060. Id. at 426 . The Supreme Court vacated our opinion in Brooks based on the guilty verdicts having…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.060(2) — 2 cases
State v. Pedersen, 566 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In the alternative, we reasoned that it was a critical stage because the defendant was called upon to state his name, which we said has “seri- ous consequences” under ORS 135.060. Id. at 426 . The Supreme Court vacated our opinion in Brooks based on the guilty verdicts having…”
State v. Murr, 295 P.3d 122 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“ORS 135.060(2). When a citation without a complaint issues, a “complaint or information may be filed with the court before or after the issuance.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.060(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Pedersen, 566 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In the alternative, we reasoned that it was a critical stage because the defendant was called upon to state his name, which we said has “seri- ous consequences” under ORS 135.060. Id. at 426 . The Supreme Court vacated our opinion in Brooks based on the guilty verdicts having…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.060(3) — 1 case
State v. Pedersen, 566 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In the alternative, we reasoned that it was a critical stage because the defendant was called upon to state his name, which we said has “seri- ous consequences” under ORS 135.060. Id. at 426 . The Supreme Court vacated our opinion in Brooks based on the guilty verdicts having…”
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.