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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.175 (2026)

Discharge

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

      135.175 Discharge. After hearing the evidence and the statement of the defendant, if the defendant has made one, unless there is a showing of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the magistrate shall dismiss the information and order the defendant to be discharged. [Formerly 133.810]

 

      135.180 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: State v. Freeland, 667 P.2d 509 (Or. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Freeland, 667 P.2d 509 (Or. 1983). · cites it 4× “ORS 135.175, 135.185. "No comparable procedural rights are accorded a person charged before a grand jury.”
State v. Clark, 630 P.2d 810 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “ORS 135.175, 135.185. No comparable procedural rights are accorded a person charged before a grand jury.”
State v. Douglas, 800 P.2d 288 (Or. 1990). · cites it 3× “ORS 135.175. At a security release hearing, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of murder.”
Barnes v. Cupp, 606 P.2d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “ORS 135.175. A guilty plea obviates the need for the state to present any evidence, so long as the judge has a basis for determining that the plea is voluntary and has a factual basis.”
State v. Montgomery, 744 P.2d 592 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “That contention lacks merit. The issues in the preliminary hearing were whether there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that defendant had committed it.”
State v. Marsh, 888 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “ORS 135.175.” 2 The Memorandum of Opinion directed defense counsel to prepare “the appropriate order” and to “submit it to the [circuit] court for signature.”
State v. Belleque, 494 P.3d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “ORS 135.175, 135.185.” Id. A trained judicial officer—instead of a grand jury—must determine that probable cause exists and enter a written order to “hold[ ] the defendant for further proceedings on 346 State v.”
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.