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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.445 (2026)

Motion for acquittal; standard for granting motion; effect

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

      136.445 Motion for acquittal; standard for granting motion; effect. In any criminal action the defendant may, after close of the state’s evidence or of all the evidence, move the court for a judgment of acquittal. The court shall grant the motion if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant. The acquittal shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. [Formerly 136.605]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Sperry, 945 P.2d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sperry, 945 P.2d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “Defendant argues that, pursuant to ORS 136.445 and ORS 131.505(6), and under Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 12, 8 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 9 once the court pronounced its ruling granting the motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count…”
State v. Metcalfe, 974 P.2d 1189 (Or. 1999). · cites it 11× “Defendant argues that the plain language of ORS 136.445, the relevant statute in this case, neither bars a post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal nor prohibits a trial court from ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury has returned its verdict.”
State v. Verdine, 624 P.2d 580 (Or. 1981). · cites it 4× “The court shall grant the motion if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant.”
State v. Priester, 530 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” ORS 136.445. In reviewing the court’s denial of a motion for acquittal, the question is not whether we believe that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient for the trier of fact to so find.”
State v. Cervantes, 873 P.2d 316 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “At the end of the state’s case-in-chief, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to ORS 136.445. 1 The trial court denied the motion, and defendant presented his case-in-chief.”
State v. Agee, 196 P.3d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Defendant bases his argument on ORS 136.445, which provides: “In any criminal action the defendant may, after close of the state’s evidence or of all the evidence, move the court for a judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Williams, 828 P.2d 1006 (Or. 1992). · cites it 2× “[6] ORS 136.445 provides in part: "The court shall grant the motion [for judgments of acquittal] if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant.”
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). · cites it 2× “Assume that one is charged, as in the case at bar, with both rape and kidnapping against the same victim.”
State v. Dikeos, 544 P.3d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “As to the merits, ORS 136.445 governs motions for judgment of acquittal and the standard for granting that motion: “In any criminal action the defendant may, after close of the state’s evidence or of all the evidence, move the court for a judgment of acquittal.”
State v. McKenzie, 771 P.2d 264 (Or. 1989). · cites it 3× “ORS 136.445.” State v. Johnson, supra, 80 Or App at 352-353 .”
State Ex Rel. Haas v. Schwabe, 556 P.2d 1366 (Or. 1976). · cites it 4× “[1] See ORS 136.445. The district attorney filed mandamus proceedings in the circuit court to require the district judge to set aside the judgment of acquittal and to enter a judgment against the defendant based on the verdict of guilty.”
State v. Hancock, 854 P.2d 926 (Or. 1993). · cites it 2× “ORS 136.445. Although the majority recognizes the unavailability requirement for the introduction of hearsay evidence, the majority states that, if defendant wants to cross-examine the criminalist, she must subpoena the criminalist as a precondition to the exercise of her…”
Show all 88 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.