136.120
Dismissal when prosecutor unready for trial; effect on subsequent prosecution;
release of defendant.
(1) If the defendant appears at the time set for trial and the prosecuting
attorney is not ready and does not show sufficient cause for postponing the
trial, the court shall dismiss the accusatory instrument unless the court
determines that dismissal is not in the public interest.
(2) If the court
dismisses the accusatory instrument under subsection (1) of this section and:
(a) The
instrument charges a felony or Class A misdemeanor, the dismissal is not a bar
to another action for the same offense unless the court so orders.
(b) The
instrument charges an offense other than a felony or Class A misdemeanor, the
dismissal shall be a bar to another action for the same offense.
(3) If the
dismissal is a bar to another action for the same offense, the court shall
follow the procedures described in ORS 135.680 concerning the defendant’s
release. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §228; 2017 c.529 §5]
136.130 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §229;
repealed by 2017 c.529 §26]
136.140 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §230;
repealed by 2017 c.529 §26]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case:
State v. Shaw, 113 P.3d 898 (Or. 2005).
State v. Shaw, 113 P.3d 898 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 29× “” *598 The trial court subsequently dismissed the indictment under ORS 136.120 8 and entered an order of dismissal with prejudice and a judgment of acquittal pursuant to ORS 136.”
State v. Ferguson, 119 P.3d 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 28× “Knapp, who had just been arrested, identified defendant as her drug supplier and, according to the state, agreed to assist police in arresting him.”
State v. Waechter, 986 P.2d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 14× “130 requires that the *1287 dismissal of the original charges be pursuant to ORS 136.120," citing State v. Carrillo, 311 Or.”
State v. Hewitt, 985 P.2d 884 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 10× “[1] The trial court's order was entered pursuant to ORS 136.120, which provides: "If, when the case is called for trial, the defendant appears for trial and the district attorney is not ready and does not show any sufficient cause for postponing the trial, the court shall order…”
State v. Cervantes, 223 P.3d 425 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “The prosecutor informed the trial court that, although she was not going to dismiss the case, "under ORS 136.120, you could dismiss the case because the prosecution is unprepared for trial.”
State v. Parliament, 995 P.2d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 11× “Parliament sua sponte pursuant to ORS 136.120. Under ORS 136.130, a dismissal pursuant to ORS 136.”
State v. Carrillo, 804 P.2d 1161 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 5× “ORS 136.120. 2 The court further ordered: “1.”
State v. Purdom, 180 P.3d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 5× “After hearing argument from the parties, the trial court refused to arraign defendant on the superseding indictment and informed the parties that the charges in case number 04-2928 would be tried under the initial indictment.”
State v. Hoffman, 515 P.3d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 9× “After granting the state’s motion for continuance, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to dis- miss the indictment with prejudice because the state failed to show “sufficient cause” for postponement under ORS 136.120. The state responds that defendant’s…”
State v. Romero, 237 P.3d 894 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “, ORS 136.120. If, on remand, the court determines that there was sufficient cause for postponing the trial, it shall reinstate defendant’s convictions.”
State v. Sondenna, 194 P.3d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 5× “The state appeals from a pretrial order entered pursuant to ORS 136.120 denying its motion for a postponement of trial and dismissing with prejudice an indictment charging defendant with menacing, ORS 163.”
S060295 State v. McDowell, 279 P.3d 198 (Or. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The trial court dismissed the charges under ORS 136.120, 1 and relator was released from custody.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.120(1) — 5 cases
State v. Hoffman, 515 P.3d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“After granting the state’s motion for continuance, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to dis- miss the indictment with prejudice because the state failed to show “sufficient cause” for postponement under ORS 136.120. The state responds that defendant’s…”
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.