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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.520 (2026)

Time of making motion; hearing

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      135.520 Time of making motion; hearing. A motion to set aside the indictment or dismiss the accusatory instrument shall be made and heard at the time of the arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, unless for good cause the court allows additional time. If not so made, the defendant is precluded from afterwards taking the objections to the indictment or accusatory instrument. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §179]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Schrunk v. Bonebrake, 865 P.2d 1289 (Or. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Schrunk v. Bonebrake, 865 P.2d 1289 (Or. 1994). · cites it 16× “510(1)(a) 6 that ORS 135.520 (set forth infra) determined the timing for the constitutional as well as the statutory challenges.”
State v. Pratt, 853 P.2d 827 (Or. 1993). · cites it 4× “See ORS 135.520 (motion to set aside indictment "shall be made and heard at the time of the arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, unless for good cause the court allows additional time"); ORS 135.”
Antoine v. Taylor, 499 P.3d 48 (Or. 2021). “In that case, because part of the defendant’s argument depended on showing that part of what the grand jury had alleged was false, this court held that the defendant’s remedy was not through a demurrer but through a “motion for a directed verdict of acquittal or a motion in…”
Goodwin v. State, 866 P.2d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “510(1)(a) and ORS 135.520]." 316 Or at 567 . Because the defendant did not timely raise the issue below, the court declined to consider whether the indictment was unconstitutionally issued and reviewed his appeal on the merits.”
State v. Miller, 458 P.2d 1017 (Or. 1969). · cites it 4× “ORS 135.520 [8] provides that the motion to set aside the indictment shall be made and heard at the time of the arraignment unless for good cause the court postpones the hearing to a future time.”
State v. Chelemedos, 398 P.3d 415 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Bowers, 117 Or App 535, 536 , 842 P2d 819 (1992), rev den, 315 Or 643 (1993) (declining to review the defendant’s claim of error that the indictment was subject to demurrer on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired when defendant raised that issue for the first…”
State v. Kurtz, 612 P.2d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “ORS 135.520. Moreover, the contention is without merit.”
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. Watson, 91 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “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. Cantrell, 195 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “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. Nash, 598 P.2d 1297 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “He also testified that he saw defendant with a man, but not with a young white girl such as the victim. Defendant first contends that the indictment was insufficient and should have been dismissed upon his motion.”
State v. Chatfield, 939 P.2d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “The state again responds by asserting two arguments, namely, that defendant’s motion was untimely and that, in any event, the fourth and fifth counts of the indictment were timely filed.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.520(2): 1 case
Antoine v. Taylor, 499 P.3d 48 (Or. 2021). “In that case, because part of the defendant’s argument depended on showing that part of what the grand jury had alleged was false, this court held that the defendant’s remedy was not through a demurrer but through a “motion for a directed verdict of acquittal or a motion in…”
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.