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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.470 (2026)

Motion to dismiss accusatory instrument on grounds of former jeopardy

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

      135.470 Motion to dismiss accusatory instrument on grounds of former jeopardy. (1) The court shall dismiss the accusatory instrument if, upon motion of the defendant, it appears, as a matter of law, that a former prosecution bars the prosecution for the offense charged.

      (2) The time of making the motion and its effect shall be as provided for a motion to set aside the indictment in ORS 135.520 and 135.530.

      (3) An order to dismiss the accusatory instrument on grounds of former jeopardy is a bar to a future prosecution of the defendant for the offense charged in the accusatory instrument. [1973 c.836 §177]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1974–2014 · leading case: State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). · cites it 4× “At the same time, the legislature enacted a new provision providing for dismissal of an accusatory instrument, ORS 135.470. The statutes now prescribe different grounds for demurring to an accusatory instrument, for "dismissing" such an instrument, and for "setting aside" an…”
State v. Freeland, 667 P.2d 509 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “The terms "accusatory instrument" and "information" as used in these statutes, are defined in ORS 131.”
State v. Toste, 100 P.3d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “He argued that, because jeopardy already had attached to his DUII charge, which was based on alcohol alone, he could not now be subject to a DUII charge based on alcohol and a controlled substance.”
State v. Jalo, 557 P.2d 1359 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “ORS 135.470(1); Commentary, Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code 166, Art.”
State v. Watson, 91 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “To decide such a motion, however, the trial court must necessarily resolve any factual issues, a role that the statute implicitly commits to it.”
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “660(1) was not limited “literally” to appeals of orders of dismissal under ORS 135.470 3 and orders setting aside indictments under ORS 135.”
State v. Rathbun, 600 P.2d 392 (Or. 1979). “” Six days later in the presence of counsel the jurors were individually interrogated by another circuit judge concerning the bailiff’s conduct and its effect on the jurors.”
State v. Hunter, 647 P.2d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “Thel felony murder count was based on allegations that Price and defendant committed] robbery in the first degree of Schwary and that in the course of the robbery they] shot and killed Schwary.”
State v. Koenig, 242 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “, ORS 135.470 (former jeopardy); ORS 135.745 to ORS 136.”
State v. Weber, 19 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “Because the citation was facially sufficient, 10 the court properly denied the demurrer. Similar analysis applies to the denial of defendant’s alternative “motion to dismiss.”
State v. Cantrell, 195 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Under ORS 135.470 and ORS 135.520, the defendant must raise the issue by a pretrial motion to dismiss, which the trial court decides as a matter of law.”
State v. James, 978 P.2d 415 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “170913. Defendant moved to dismiss the criminal charge against him on the ground that his prosecution would violate the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.470(1) — 2 cases
State v. Jalo, 557 P.2d 1359 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “ORS 135.470(1); Commentary, Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code 166, Art.”
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “660(1) was not limited “literally” to appeals of orders of dismissal under ORS 135.470 3 and orders setting aside indictments under ORS 135.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.470(2) — 1 case
State v. Hunter, 647 P.2d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “Thel felony murder count was based on allegations that Price and defendant committed] robbery in the first degree of Schwary and that in the course of the robbery they] shot and killed Schwary.”
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.