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…”
State v. Summers, 371 P.3d 1223 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Defendant argues that, under ORS 136.445 6 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 7 he may be convicted only upon sufficient proof.”
State v. McCombs, 544 P.3d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “See ORS 136.445 (providing that the court should acquit a defendant where “the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant”).”
State v. White, 154 P.3d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “*215 Motions for judgments of acquittal are governed by 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. Werner, 383 P.3d 875 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 136.445; State v. Hall, 327 Or 568, 570 , 966 P2d 208 (1998).”
State v. Carrillo, 804 P.2d 1161 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “ORS 136.445. 5 The Court of Appeals opinion generally follows defendant’s theory.”
State v. Wolfs, 826 P.2d 623 (Or. 1992). · cites it 3× “]” ORS 136.445 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.”
Norwood v. Premo, 403 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “See ORS 136.445 (motion for judgment of acquittal appropriate when evidence will not support verdict; allowance bars reprosecution on same offense); ORS 136.”
State v. Carrillo, 466 P.3d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Moreover, the state does not contest that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the discharge alleged in Counts 15 and 18 occurred “within urban growth boundaries.”
City of Portland v. Miller, 659 P.2d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “ORS 136.445. The trial court denied the motion: “Well, I have to look at the evidence most favorable to the State, * * * and there’s * * * evidence that, looked at favorably to the State, makes out a, a need for [defendant] to proceed, so I will deny the Motion.”
State v. Cargill, 786 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “” ORS 136.445. Petitioners were engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.”
State v. Cervantes, 848 P.2d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Defendant appeals his conviction for rape in the second degree. ORS 163.365(1).”
State v. Moore, 25 P.3d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “" [2] For purposes of review, we treat defendant's motion for an order of dismissal as a motion for a judgment of acquittal under ORS 136.445. [3] The Port of Portland ordinance provides: "(1) No person shall drink any alcoholic liquor at the airport: "* * * * * "(c) In those…”
State v. Andrew William Betnar, 166 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “]” Motions for acquittal are governed by 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. Bistrika, 324 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “ORS 136.445; State v. Hall, 327 Or 568, 570 , 966 P2d 208 (1998).”
State v. Damofle, 750 P.2d 518 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Defendants appeal their convictions for criminal mistreatment in the second degree, contending that the trial court erred in denying their motions for acquittal under ORS 136.445. We affirm. The material facts are not in dispute.”
State v. Harwood, 609 P.2d 1312 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “ORS 136.445; State v. Krummacher, 269 Or 125, 137-38 , 523 P2d 1009 (1974).”
State v. Mulder, 629 P.2d 816 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “The case was tried without a jury, and at the close of evidence defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, ORS 136.445, "on the ground that the state has failed to prove an element of the crime; that is, that the defendant drove upon premises open to the public.”
State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 136.445. In order to preserve the state’s right to appeal from trial court rulings that declare a statute unconstitutionally vague, the Supreme Court concluded in McKenzie that trial courts should treat motions for judgment of acquittal as “premature motions in arrest of…”
State v. Chang Hwan Cho, 681 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1984). “” 3 The proper motion is for a judgment of acquittal, ORS 136.445; neither the state nor the trial judge was misled as to the legal issue presented, and we treat the motion actually made as being for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Graham, 689 P.2d 1315 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Defendant appeals his conviction for attempted rape in the first degree. ORS 163.”
State v. Graham, 284 P.3d 515 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state. A court must grant a motion for a judgment of acquittal “if the evidence introduced theretofore is such as would not support a verdict against the defendant.”
State v. Anderson, 542 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The First Assignment: Denial of MJOA Defendant first assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) argu- ing that the evidence would not support a verdict against him on the charge of kidnapping in the second degree.”
State v. Olson, 592 P.2d 273 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “As his third assignment of error defendant contends the court; erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Heikkinen, 765 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “[3] Defendant next assigns error to the trial court's denial of his oral motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state's case in chief. On the basis of the evidence discovered in the house and the circumstantial evidence, a rational jury could find the elements…”
State v. Cox, 540 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” ORS 136.445. Here, defendant used the term “directed verdict” for his later motion, but, in a criminal case, it is more accurately described as an MJOA, so we use that term for both motions.”
State v. Fields, 468 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Hall, 327 Or 568, 570 , 966 P2d 208 (1998); ORS 136.445. On November 14, 2017, defendant and the victim got into an argument.”
State v. McNall, 476 P.3d 1259 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to determine that defendant commit- ted both offenses.”
State Ex Rel. Redden v. Davis, 604 P.2d 879 (Or. 1980). · cites it 2× “At the close of the state’s case upon trial of the charge Eakin moved for judgment of acquittal, ORS 136.445, on the ground that there was no evidence that he knew 2 he had a weapon.”
State v. King, 111 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Korth, 344 P.3d 491 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Hendrix, 813 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Shipp, 557 P.2d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
State v. Garrett, 574 P.2d 639 (Or. 1978).
State v. Vaughn, 28 P.3d 636 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2×
State v. Woodley, 746 P.2d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Hall, 814 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Peters v. Belleque, 250 P.3d 456 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Horn, 643 P.2d 1338 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Gunder, 964 P.2d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Tucker, 251 P.3d 224 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Connett, 616 P.2d 1191 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Thomas, 911 P.2d 1237 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Davis/Hamilton, 95 P.3d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2×
State v. Tate, 220 P.3d 1176 (Or. 2009).
State v. Davis, 385 P.3d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Britt, 557 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Rogers, 340 Or. App. 625 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Fredette, 696 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Allison, 799 P.2d 676 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Rogers, 340 Or. App. 625 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2×
State v. Johnson, 722 P.2d 1266 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Pierce, 131 P.3d 776 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Harding, 162 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Sutherland v. Fhuere, 549 P.3d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Arnold, 752 P.2d 1300 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. S., 350 Or. App. 802 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2×
State v. Guthrie, 735 P.2d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2×
State v. Hankins, 93 P.3d 826 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
City of Portland v. King, 156 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Lockhart, 508 P.3d 526 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Donato, 525 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Stapleton, 556 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
State v. Wolfs, 803 P.2d 1192 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Casey, 168 P.3d 315 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Fowler, 525 P.2d 1061 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
State v. Luttrell, 764 P.2d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Van De Vorren, 767 P.2d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Priester (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. McCoombs (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Britt (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Patnesky, 335 P.3d 331 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Fisher, 346 Or. App. 328 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Oidor, 292 P.3d 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Colvin, 555 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
State v. Dave, 608 P.2d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Sanarrita, 794 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
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.