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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630 (2026)

Grounds of demurrer

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

      135.630 Grounds of demurrer. The defendant may demur to the accusatory instrument when it appears upon the face thereof:

      (1) If the accusatory instrument is an indictment, that the grand jury by which it was found had no legal authority to inquire into the crime charged because the same is not triable within the county;

      (2) If the accusatory instrument is an indictment, that it does not substantially conform to the requirements of ORS 132.510 to 132.560, 135.713, 135.715, 135.717 to 135.737, 135.740 and 135.743;

      (3) That the accusatory instrument charges more than one offense not separately stated;

      (4) That the facts stated do not constitute an offense;

      (5) That the accusatory instrument contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense charged or other legal bar to the action; or

      (6) That the accusatory instrument is not definite and certain. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §184]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 188 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Cervantes, 223 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cervantes, 223 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 22× “In their arguments with respect to the charges alleged in Counts 1 and 2, the parties both continue to make arguments pertaining to the facts that they expected the state to prove, rather than limiting their arguments to the facts as alleged in the indictment.”
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). · cites it 13× “560, requires that an indictment allege the basis for joining charges; the state argues that it does not. Two statutes are relevant to whether an indictment must allege the basis for joining charges: the joinder statute, ORS 132.”
State v. Wimber, 843 P.2d 424 (Or. 1992). · cites it 16× “ORS 135.630 provides in part: "The defendant may demur to the accusatory instrument when it appears upon the face thereof: "* * * * * "(4) That the facts stated do not constitute an offense; [or] "(5) That the accusatory instrument contains matter which, if true, would…”
Antoine v. Taylor, 499 P.3d 48 (Or. 2021). · cites it 4× “ORS 135.630(6) also permits demurrer to an accusa- tory instrument on the ground “[t]hat the accusatory instru- ment is not definite and certain.”
State v. Hankins, 151 P.3d 149 (Or. 2007). · cites it 12× “It follows that those grounds may be raised only at arraignment or at such other time as the trial court allows *265 under ORS 135.”
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 13× “Defendant’s argument, as we understand it, is that Robertson’s jurisdictional holding goes only to orders sustaining demurrers under subsection (4), and not to ORS 135.630 generally. Nothing in Robertson suggests such a limitation.”
State v. Fanus, 79 P.3d 847 (Or. 2003). · cites it 5× “According to the state, because defendant challenges the constitutionality of only the sentencing statute for aggravated murder, his claims do not relate to a defect appearing on the face of the indictment and are not among the grounds for a pretrial demurrer under ORS 135.”
State v. Poston, 399 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The requirements that the statute imposes for joinder, in turn, are enforceable by demurrer under ORS 135.630(2), which tests whether an indictment shows on its face that the joinder requirements have been met.”
State v. Poston, 370 P.3d 904 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “ORS 135.630 provides that a defendant “may demur to the accusatory instrument when it appears upon the face thereof * * * that it does not substantially conform to the requirements of *** ORS 132.”
State v. Pinnell, 877 P.2d 635 (Or. 1994). · cites it 6× “ORS 135.630; 135.640. The possible application of a "true life" sentence to defendant did not appear on the face of the indictment.”
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). · cites it 2× “ORS 135.630. "Dismissal" is proper for former jeopardy.”
State v. McKenzie, 771 P.2d 264 (Or. 1989). · cites it 5× “” ORS 135.630 is the statute setting out the grounds for demurrer to a charging instrument.”
Show all 188 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630(1) — 18 cases
State v. Shevyakov, 489 P.3d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. McKenzie, 771 P.2d 264 (Or. 1989). “” ORS 135.630 is the statute setting out the grounds for demurrer to a charging instrument.”
State v. Burnett, 60 P.3d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. McLaughlin, 258 P.3d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Metcalfe, 974 P.2d 1189 (Or. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630(2) — 39 cases
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). “560, requires that an indictment allege the basis for joining charges; the state argues that it does not. Two statutes are relevant to whether an indictment must allege the basis for joining charges: the joinder statute, ORS 132.”
State v. Poston, 399 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “The requirements that the statute imposes for joinder, in turn, are enforceable by demurrer under ORS 135.630(2), which tests whether an indictment shows on its face that the joinder requirements have been met.”
Antoine v. Taylor, 499 P.3d 48 (Or. 2021). “ORS 135.630(6) also permits demurrer to an accusa- tory instrument on the ground “[t]hat the accusatory instru- ment is not definite and certain.”
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Defendant’s argument, as we understand it, is that Robertson’s jurisdictional holding goes only to orders sustaining demurrers under subsection (4), and not to ORS 135.630 generally. Nothing in Robertson suggests such a limitation.”
State v. Clardy, 401 P.3d 1188 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630(3) — 5 cases
State v. Drown, 263 P.3d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Defendant’s argument, as we understand it, is that Robertson’s jurisdictional holding goes only to orders sustaining demurrers under subsection (4), and not to ORS 135.630 generally. Nothing in Robertson suggests such a limitation.”
State v. Hall, 814 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Brom, 494 P.2d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
State v. Sweet, 610 P.2d 310 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630(4) — 69 cases
State v. Wimber, 843 P.2d 424 (Or. 1992). “ORS 135.630 provides in part: "The defendant may demur to the accusatory instrument when it appears upon the face thereof: "* * * * * "(4) That the facts stated do not constitute an offense; [or] "(5) That the accusatory instrument contains matter which, if true, would…”
State v. Hankins, 151 P.3d 149 (Or. 2007). “It follows that those grounds may be raised only at arraignment or at such other time as the trial court allows *265 under ORS 135.”
State v. Crain, 33 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Farrar, 786 P.2d 161 (Or. 1990).
State v. Young, 985 P.2d 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630(5) — 6 cases
State v. Wimber, 843 P.2d 424 (Or. 1992). “ORS 135.630 provides in part: "The defendant may demur to the accusatory instrument when it appears upon the face thereof: "* * * * * "(4) That the facts stated do not constitute an offense; [or] "(5) That the accusatory instrument contains matter which, if true, would…”
State v. Garcia, 377 P.3d 596 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
State v. Livingston, 699 P.2d 1131 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Young, 985 P.2d 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Gruhlke, 306 P.3d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.630(6) — 29 cases
Antoine v. Taylor, 499 P.3d 48 (Or. 2021). “ORS 135.630(6) also permits demurrer to an accusa- tory instrument on the ground “[t]hat the accusatory instru- ment is not definite and certain.”
State v. Chakerian, 938 P.2d 756 (Or. 1997).
State v. Schwartz, 21 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Morgan, 951 P.2d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Fair, 953 P.2d 383 (Or. 1998).
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.