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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.070 (2026)

Postponement of trial

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

      136.070 Postponement of trial. When a case is at issue upon a question of fact and before the same is called for trial, the court may, upon sufficient cause shown by the affidavit of the defendant or the statement of the district attorney, direct the trial to be postponed for a reasonable period of time. [Amended by 1959 c.638 §18; 1973 c.836 §226]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2023 · leading case: State of Oregon v. Kuhnhausen, 272 P.2d 225 (Or. 1954).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Oregon v. Kuhnhausen, 272 P.2d 225 (Or. 1954). · cites it 7× “" We refer to ORS 136.070 and ORS 136.120. It has been suggested that there is an exception to the general rule in the case of a contemporaneous legislative construction of the constitution.”
State v. Longoria, 520 P.2d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 8× “First, he assigns the failure of the presiding judge to grant his motion for a continuance and of the trial judge to grant his renewed motion for a continuance.”
State v. Glushko, 266 P.3d 50 (Or. 2011). “What is now ORS 136.070 provided: “When an indictment is at issue upon a question of fact, and before the same is called for trial, the court may, upon sufficient cause shown by the affidavit of the defendant, or the statement of the district attorney, direct the trial to be…”
State v. Fredinburg, 308 P.3d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “ORS 136.070 requires that a motion for postponement be made before a case “is called for trial.”
State v. Person, 853 P.2d 813 (Or. 1993). · cites it 2× “775 (court may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance for good cause); ORS 136.070 (postponement of trial permitted for "sufficient cause shown").”
State v. Reese, 548 P.2d 998 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Given the time frame and the lack of prior continuances, if defendant had made in a proper manner a specific showing of a plausibility of producing evidence helpful to him, the trial court would have erred in denying his motion for a continuance.”
State v. Cheshier, 597 P.2d 839 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Six of the state’s witnesses were present, and no showing was made that any other witnesses could not be obtained for the trial.”
State v. Jackson, 365 P.2d 294 (Or. 1961). “The action of the court continuing the cause until the September term was authorized by ORS 136.070, which reads: “When an indictment is at issue upon a question of fact and before the same is called for trial, the court may, upon sufficient cause shown by the affidavit of the…”
State Ex Rel. Penn v. Norblad, 918 P.2d 426 (Or. 1996). “005 (a defendant may challenge jury panel); ORS 136.070 (a defendant may move to seek postponement of trial); ORS 136.”
State v. Crosby, 342 P.2d 831 (Or. 1959). “” See Section 145, Deady’s Code, p 358, now ORS 136.070. ③ The comparable phrase in statutes of some of the states is “term of the court in which the cause is pending.”
State v. Sondenna, 194 P.3d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “5 We note that ORS 136.070 provides that the trial court “may” postpone trial, “upon sufficient cause shown,” and that, generally, until the court’s decision in Shaw , the decision whether to grant a continuance was understood to be within the discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Gallegos, 336 P.3d 515 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Under ORS 136.070, a trial court “may, upon sufficient cause shown by the affidavit of the defendant or the statement of the district attorney, direct the trial to be postponed for a reasonable period of time.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.