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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.560 (2026)

Order to set aside is no bar to future prosecution

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

      135.560 Order to set aside is no bar to future prosecution. Except for an order dismissing an accusatory instrument on grounds of former jeopardy, an order to set aside an indictment or to dismiss an accusatory instrument is no bar to a future prosecution for the same crime. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §182]

 

DEMURRERS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: State v. Brown, 531 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Brown, 531 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Held: The indict- ments were misjoined because the offenses directly related to the traffic accident in the first indictment and the offenses in the second indictment did not satisfy any of the statutory bases for joinder in ORS 135.560(1)(b)(A) to (C). Although joinder of the…”
State v. Ibkheitan Ibkheitan, 838 P.2d 1091 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Williams, 17 Or App 43, 47 , 520 P2d 462 (1974); see also ORS 135.560. The trial court erred when it held that the dismissal of the charges of unlawful sound recording barred prosecution of defendants for selling a counterfeit mark under ORS 136.”
State v. Sieckmann, 474 P.2d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 1970). “521, 527 , 388 P2d 739 (1964); ORS 135.560. ② In Koenig v. Willingham, 324 F2d 62, 64 (6th Cir 1963), cert den 376 US 958 , 84 S Ct 980 , 11 L Ed 2d 976 (1964), on essentially similar facts, the prosecution appealed an order suppressing evidence.”
State v. Moline, 800 P.2d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “ORS 135.560 and ORS 135.530(2), which concern the effect of orders of dismissal on reprosecution, were adopted at the same time as ORS 135.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.560(1)(b)(A): 1 case
State v. Brown, 531 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Held: The indict- ments were misjoined because the offenses directly related to the traffic accident in the first indictment and the offenses in the second indictment did not satisfy any of the statutory bases for joinder in ORS 135.560(1)(b)(A) to (C). Although joinder of the…”
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.