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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.535 (2026)

New trial; application of ORCP 64 F to motion in arrest of judgment

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

      136.535 New trial; application of ORCP 64 F to motion in arrest of judgment. (1) Except that a new trial may not be granted on application of the state, ORS 19.430 and ORCP 64 A, B and D to G apply to and regulate new trials in criminal actions.

      (2) The provisions of ORCP 64 F governing motions for a new trial apply to and regulate motions in arrest of judgment in criminal actions. [Formerly 136.851; 1979 c.284 §114; 2003 c.288 §1; 2009 c.112 §1]

 

      136.540 [Amended by 1957 c.567 §1; renumbered 136.425]

 

      136.545 [1963 c.511 §2; 1973 c.836 §238; renumbered 136.435]

 

      136.550 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §239; renumbered 136.440]

 

WITNESSES

 

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Keene
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Keene (2022) Or. Ct. App. · cites it 6× “Schwabe, 276 Or 853, 856 , 556 P2d 1366 (1976) (cit- ing ORS 136.535). Neither of those motions provided defen- dant a mechanism for raising the issue here, in a case tried to the court.”
Herrera v. Collins (1993) SCOTUS “33A(6), B (1988) (120 days, can be waived); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 136.535 (1991) (five days, can be waived); Pa.”
State v. Sullens (1992) Or. · cites it 4× “See also ORS 136.535; ORCP 64A, B, D-G. Our holding today should not be taken to undercut this body of law.”
State Ex Rel. Penn v. Norblad (1996) Or. · cites it 5× “500 (a defendant may move for arrest of judgment); ORS 136.535 (a defendant may move for new trial).”
State v. Guzek (2004) Or. · cites it 2× “" [35] The forgoing point is made even more forcefully when one considers that revisiting the issue of guilt or innocence is permitted in specified circumstances, such as (1) the discovery of new evidence (if that is what happens) (ORS 136.535; ORCP 64 B(4)); (2) post-conviction…”
Farmer v. Premo (2017) Or. Ct. App. · cites it 9× “Trial counsel filed a motion for new trial pursuant to ORS 136.535 (2001) and ORCP 64, based on the discovery of new evidence.”
State v. Metcalfe (1999) Or. · cites it 6× “The code of criminal procedure provides for two post-verdict motions in a criminal proceeding that are closely related to our inquiry regarding a trial court’s authority under ORS 136.”
State v. Ramoz (2021) Or. “Instead, the state countered that the proper way to remedy an error in jury instructions was on appeal and 3 ORS 136.535(1) provides, in relevant part, that “ORCP 64 A, B, and D to G apply to and regulate new trials in criminal actions.”
State v. Lundbom (1989) Or. Ct. App. · cites it 2× “ORS 136.535(4). 2 The issue is whether the trial court committed reversible error when it denied that motion after failing to sustain the objections to the prosecutor’s remarks.”
State v. Arnold (1994) Or. · cites it 2× “ORS 136.535(4). [2] Jenkins finished testifying before noon on Monday, March 18, 1991.”
State v. Futch (1993) Or. Ct. App. · cites it 2× “He concedes that making the motion at that time does not comply with ORS 136.535, which requires that the motion be made "within five days after the filing of the judgment.”
State v. Woodman (2006) Or. “” Although ORCP 64 B by its own terms relates to civil trial, ORS 136.535 provides that the rule “applties] to and regulatets] new trials in criminal actions.”
Show all 66 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.535(1) — 13 cases
State v. Ramoz (2021) Or. “Instead, the state countered that the proper way to remedy an error in jury instructions was on appeal and 3 ORS 136.535(1) provides, in relevant part, that “ORCP 64 A, B, and D to G apply to and regulate new trials in criminal actions.”
State v. Keene (2022) Or. Ct. App. “Schwabe, 276 Or 853, 856 , 556 P2d 1366 (1976) (cit- ing ORS 136.535). Neither of those motions provided defen- dant a mechanism for raising the issue here, in a case tried to the court.”
State Ex Rel. Penn v. Norblad (1996) Or. “500 (a defendant may move for arrest of judgment); ORS 136.535 (a defendant may move for new trial).”
State v. Puckett (2024) Or. Ct. App.
State v. Sullens (1991) Or. Ct. App.
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.535(2) — 1 case
State v. Meiser (2018) Or. Ct. App.
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.535(3) — 12 cases
State v. Sullens (1992) Or. “See also ORS 136.535; ORCP 64A, B, D-G. Our holding today should not be taken to undercut this body of law.”
Ryerse v. Haddock (2003) Or. Ct. App.
State Ex Rel. Penn v. Norblad (1996) Or. “500 (a defendant may move for arrest of judgment); ORS 136.535 (a defendant may move for new trial).”
State v. ALVAREZ-VEGA (2011) Or. Ct. App.
Farmer v. Premo (2017) Or. Ct. App. “Trial counsel filed a motion for new trial pursuant to ORS 136.535 (2001) and ORCP 64, based on the discovery of new evidence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.535(4) — 10 cases
State v. Lundbom (1989) Or. Ct. App. “ORS 136.535(4). 2 The issue is whether the trial court committed reversible error when it denied that motion after failing to sustain the objections to the prosecutor’s remarks.”
State v. Arnold (1994) Or. “ORS 136.535(4). [2] Jenkins finished testifying before noon on Monday, March 18, 1991.”
Mitchell v. Mt. Hood Meadows Oreg. (2004) Or. Ct. App.
State v. Sullens (1992) Or. “See also ORS 136.535; ORCP 64A, B, D-G. Our holding today should not be taken to undercut this body of law.”
State v. Grey (2001) Or. Ct. App.
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.