135.185
Holding defendant to answer; use of hearsay evidence. If it appears from the preliminary
hearing that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed
and that the defendant committed it, the magistrate shall make a written order
holding the defendant for further proceedings on the charge. When hearsay
evidence was admitted at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate, in
determining the existence of probable cause, shall consider:
(1) The extent to
which the hearsay quality of the evidence affects the weight it should be
given; and
(2) The
likelihood of evidence other than hearsay being available at trial to provide
the information furnished by hearsay at the preliminary hearing. [Formerly
133.820; 1981 c.892 §88c; 2007 c.71 §33]
135.190 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case:
State v. Wright
State v. Wright (1992)
or · cites it 2×
“" In addition, ORS 135.185 describes the effect of admitting hearsay evidence, pursuant to ORS 135.”
State v. Keys (2020)
orctapp
“(empha- sis added); see ORS 135.185 (1977) (providing that a magis- trate who made a probable cause determination “shall make a written order holding the defendant for further proceed- ings on the charge”); ORS 135.”
State v. Vasquez (2001)
orctapp
“, ORS 135.185 (a criminal defendant can be held to answer upon a showing of probable cause); ORS 135.”
State v. King (1987)
orctapp
““2) The indictment of April 19, 1983 was returned and filed within the 30-days allowed by the Court to the State to resubmit the matter to the Grand Jury.”
State v. Montgomery (1987)
orctapp
“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.”
Kellotat v. Cupp (1986)
orctapp
“070 to ORS 135.185. In Clark and Edmonson , the court held that the coexistence of the two procedures, in and of itself, does not violate an accused’s equal privileges guarantees so long as the choice of procedure is not administered “purely haphazardly or otherwise on terms…”
State v. Sheppard (1978)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“See ORS 135.185 3 and ORS 135.225. 4 In the instant case, the charge contained in the information was cast in the language of ORS 164.”
State v. Belleque (2021)
orctapp
“” ORS 135.185. In contrast, “the grand jury need not hear any evidence for the defendant, ORS 132.”
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.