Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.715

Effect of nonprejudicial defects in form of accusatory instrument

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      135.715 Effect of nonprejudicial defects in form of accusatory instrument. No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits. [Formerly 132.590]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: City of Portland v. Aziz
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Portland v. Aziz (1980) orctapp · cites it 2× “005(9)(a) provides that, "(9) `District attorney's information' means a written accusation by a district attorney and: "(a) If filed with a magistrate to charge a person with the commission of an offense, other than an offense punishable as a felony, serves both to commence an…”
State v. Coven (1992) orctapp · cites it 2× “Later cases incorporated into that rule the "prejudice" standard of ORS 135.715 ( formerly ORS 132.590), which provides: "No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a…”
State v. Wells (1997) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 135.715 provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon…”
State v. Delaney (1999) orctapp “In rejecting that argument, we first referred to ORS 135.715, which provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the…”
State v. Costello (1992) orctapp “ORS 135.715 provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon…”
State v. Duvall (2003) orctapp “ORS 135.715 provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon…”
State v. Levitt (2025) orctapp · cites it 2× “To support its argument, the state also points to ORS 135.715, which provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the…”
State v. Paetehr (2000) orctapp “715 provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the…”
State v. Walker (2020) orctapp · cites it 5× “”1 Second, the court cited ORS 135.715 and alterna- tively held that any problem with the citation did not require dismissal: “[A]ssuming an insufficiency with respect to the 1 ORS 153.”
State v. Levitt (2025) orctapp · cites it 2× “To support its argument, the state also points to ORS 135.715, which provides: “No accusatory instrument is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in a matter of form which does not tend to the…”
State v. Templeton (1975) orctapp “202(3) does not require that the transaction actually be consummated nor that the transaction be financially remunerative to the furnisher. Finally, although the indictment names October 22,1974, as the date of the offense we hold that the exact time is not a material element of…”
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.