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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.060 (2026)

Jointly charged defendants to be tried jointly; exception

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

      136.060 Jointly charged defendants to be tried jointly; exception. (1) Jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so and orders that a defendant be tried separately. In reaching its conclusion the court shall strongly consider the victim’s interest in a joint trial.

      (2) In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court may order the prosecution to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by any defendant that the prosecution intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. [Amended by 1983 c.705 §1; 1987 c.2 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: State v. Turnidge, 374 P.3d 853 (Or. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Turnidge, 374 P.3d 853 (Or. 2016). · cites it 33× “On review, defendant argues that the trial court’s rulings were error under ORS 136.060 and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Umphrey, 786 P.2d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 18× “In amending ORS 136.060, the people chose to require joint trials, despite that possibility.”
State v. Shaw, 113 P.3d 898 (Or. 2005). “Only under those circumstances can we reasonably be assured that our review of a defendant’s assignments of error on cross-appeal will not contribute unnecessarily to the delay from a state pretrial appeal under ORS 136.060(2)(a). In this case, with the exception of his…”
State v. Lyons, 985 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “ORS 136.060(1) commits that decision to the sound discretion of the trial court: “Jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so and orders that a defendant be tried separately.”
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Under ORS 136.060(1), “tflointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so[.”
State v. Bellar, 217 P.3d 1094 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Only under those factual circumstances can we reasonably be assured that our review of a defendant's assignments of error on cross-appeal will not contribute unnecessarily to the delay from a state pretrial appeal under ORS 136.”
State v. Nix, 334 P.3d 437 (Or. 2014). “385 to provide that trial courts are not authorized to exclude victims from the court; it amended ORS 136.060 to require the trial court to take into consideration the crime victim’s interest in determining whether to try jointly charged defendants together; it amended ORS…”
State v. Hughes, 344 Or. App. 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “The court therefore con- cluded that there was no basis to sever under ORS 136.060. Defendant’s seventh assignment on appeal contends that the trial court erred in denying his renewed motion to sever under ORS 136.”
State v. Turner, 956 P.2d 215 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “The state argues that, under ORS 136.060, jointly charged defendants “shall be tried jointly” unless the court concludes before trial that it is “clearly inappropriate” to do so.”
State v. Carrillo, 804 P.2d 1161 (Or. 1991). “After examining ORS 136.060 from 1864 through its present form, we find no evidence that the legislature has ever authorized the state to appeal a “judgment of acquittal” entered pursuant to ORS 136.”
State v. Coleman, 883 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Under ORS 136.060, jointly-charged defendants must be tried jointly unless the trial court concludes that it is “clearly inappropriate” to do so.”
State of Oregon v. Kuhnhausen, 272 P.2d 225 (Or. 1954). “On March 14, 1952, defendant filed her motion for a separate trial pursuant to the provisions of § 26-923, OCLA (ORS 136.060), and on the same day the court entered an order "that the defendant, Bonnie Lee Kuhnhausen, be tried separately from defendant, Elmer Dorsey Williams,…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.060(1) — 12 cases
State v. Turnidge, 374 P.3d 853 (Or. 2016). “On review, defendant argues that the trial court’s rulings were error under ORS 136.060 and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Umphrey, 786 P.2d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “In amending ORS 136.060, the people chose to require joint trials, despite that possibility.”
State v. Lyons, 985 P.2d 204 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 136.060(1) commits that decision to the sound discretion of the trial court: “Jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so and orders that a defendant be tried separately.”
State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Under ORS 136.060(1), “tflointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so[.”
State v. Quintero, 823 P.2d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.060(2) — 5 cases
State v. Turnidge, 374 P.3d 853 (Or. 2016). “On review, defendant argues that the trial court’s rulings were error under ORS 136.060 and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Umphrey, 786 P.2d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “In amending ORS 136.060, the people chose to require joint trials, despite that possibility.”
State v. Hughes, 344 Or. App. 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “The court therefore con- cluded that there was no basis to sever under ORS 136.060. Defendant’s seventh assignment on appeal contends that the trial court erred in denying his renewed motion to sever under ORS 136.”
State v. Hughes, 344 Or. App. 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Tyson, 694 P.2d 1003 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.060(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Shaw, 113 P.3d 898 (Or. 2005). “Only under those circumstances can we reasonably be assured that our review of a defendant’s assignments of error on cross-appeal will not contribute unnecessarily to the delay from a state pretrial appeal under ORS 136.060(2)(a). In this case, with the exception of his…”
State v. Bellar, 217 P.3d 1094 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Only under those factual circumstances can we reasonably be assured that our review of a defendant's assignments of error on cross-appeal will not contribute unnecessarily to the delay from a state pretrial appeal under ORS 136.”
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.