Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.320

Function of jury; jury to receive law as laid down by court

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

      136.320 Function of jury; jury to receive law as laid down by court. Although the jury may find a general verdict, which includes questions of law as well as fact, it is bound, nevertheless, to receive as law what is laid down as such by the court; but all questions of fact, other than those mentioned in ORS 136.310, shall be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: State v. Upton
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Upton (2005) or · cites it 5× “030 and ORS 136.320 provide that questions of fact are for the jury.”
State v. Wiltse (2024) or “See ORS 136.320 (“all questions of fact,” except those that have been judicially noticed, “shall be decided by the jury”); State v.”
State v. Miller (1990) or · cites it 2× “Article I, section 11, provides in part that "the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury.”
State v. Boots (1993) or · cites it 2× “320 (the issues of fact that arise on a plea of not guilty "shall be *88 decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to it"); Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution ("In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine * * * the…”
State v. Hickman (2014) or “”); ORS 136.320 (“questions of fact” in criminal cases are generally for the jury to decide).”
State v. Poole (2001) orctapp “, ORS 136.320 (the issues of fact that arise on a plea of not guilty “shall be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to it”); State v.”
State v. Hansen (1970) orctapp “This is a determination within the sole province of the jury in a criminal case, ORS 136.320. Since they may have *385 based their verdict on the first ground, it is necessary to remand for a new trial.”
State v. Wick (2007) orctapp “The state provided the sentencing *411 memorandum to defendant 11 days after the effective date of SB 528.”
State v. Gotham (1991) orctapp “We disagree. Defendant challenged the legality of the search and seizure in his motion to suppress.”
State v. Wiltse (2024) or “See ORS 136.320 (“all questions of fact,” except those that have been judicially noticed, “shall be decided by the jury”); State v.”
State v. Wiltse (2024) or “See ORS 136.320 (“all questions of fact,” except those that have been judicially noticed, “shall be decided by the jury”); State v.”
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.