Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.745 (2026)
Delay in finding an indictment or filing an information
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
135.745 Delay in finding an indictment or filing an information. When a person has been held to answer for a crime, if an indictment is not found against the person within 30 days or the district attorney does not file an information in circuit court within 30 days after the person is held to answer, the court shall order the prosecution to be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary is shown. [Formerly 134.110]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases, 1975–2016 · leading case: State v. Emery, 869 P.2d 859 (Or. 1994).
State v. Emery, 869 P.2d 859 (Or. 1994). “ORS 135.745 provides: “When a person has been held to answer for a crime, if an indictment is not found against the person within 30 days or the district attorney does not file an information in circuit court within 30 days after the person is held to answer, the court shall…”
State v. McCormick, 571 P.2d 499 (Or. 1977). “No indictment or information of this charge having been filed in circuit court within the next 30 days, defendant on April 16 moved the circuit court to dismiss the prosecution pursuant to ORS 135.745. On the same day, the district attorney for Multnomah County filed an…”
State v. Johnson, 116 P.3d 879 (Or. 2005). “This criminal case, arising out of defendant’s conviction for third-degree rape, raises various issues relating to the proper interpretation and application of Oregon’s statutory provisions respecting speedy trials, ORS 135.745 to 135.750. Pursuant to those statutes, and based…”
Application of Haynes, 619 P.2d 632 (Or. 1980). “ORS 135.745. Once charged, a defendant "whose trial has not been postponed upon his application or by his consent" must be tried "within a reasonable period of time" or the court must dismiss the accusatory instrument.”
State v. McCormick, 561 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “We turn now to the defendant's contention that the failure of the district attorney to file the information within the time specified in ORS 135.745 requires that the charge against him be dismissed.”
Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016). “73 (Lexis 2014) ; Ore.Rev.Stat. §§ 135.745, 135.746, 135.748, 135.”
State v. Freeland, 667 P.2d 509 (Or. 1983). “747, the "prosecution," ORS 135.745, the "dismissal [of a] charge or action," ORS 135.”
State v. Garcia, 142 P.3d 501 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “” Even if a defendant is otherwise entitled to dismissal of charges under ORS 135.”
State v. Shaw, 113 P.3d 898 (Or. 2005). “Clark, 86 Or 464, 468 , 168 P 944 (1917) (so stating); see also ORS 135.745 (authorizing trial court to dismiss prosecution if accusatory instrument not filed within 30 days unless good cause shown); ORS 135.”
State v. Adams, 116 P.3d 898 (Or. 2005). “This is the third of three cases that we decide today under the so-called speedy trial statutes, ORS 135.745 to 135.750. This case arises out of defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the state had failed to bring him to trial within a “reasonable period of time” under…”
State v. Gilliland, 752 P.2d 1255 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “763(1); ORS 135.745. Although the grand jury has authority to inquire into crimes, receive evidence, ORS 132.”
State v. Davids, 116 P.3d 894 (Or. 2005). “750 provides: “If the defendant is not proceeded against or tried, as provided in ORS 135.745 and 135.747, and sufficient reason therefor is shown, the court may order the action to be continued and in the meantime may release the defendant from custody as provided in ORS 135.”
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.