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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.076 (2026)

Conduct of trial

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

      153.076 Conduct of trial. (1) Violation proceedings shall be tried to the court sitting without jury. The trial in a violation proceeding may not be scheduled fewer than seven days after the date that the citation is issued unless the defendant waives the seven-day period.

      (2) The state, municipality or political subdivision shall have the burden of proving the charged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

      (3) The pretrial discovery rules in ORS 135.805 to 135.873 apply in violation proceedings.

      (4) The defendant may not be required to be a witness in the trial of any violation.

      (5) Defense counsel shall not be provided at public expense in any proceeding in which only violations are charged.

      (6) A district attorney or city attorney may aid in preparing evidence and obtaining witnesses but, except upon good cause shown to the court, shall not appear in violation proceedings unless counsel for the defendant appears. The court shall ensure that the district attorney or city attorney is given timely notice if defense counsel is to appear at trial. [1999 c.1051 §21]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013). · cites it 5× “Under ORS 153.076, violation proceedings must be tried to the court, and certain other protections for criminal defendants are unavailable.”
State v. Dahl, 87 P.3d 650 (Or. 2004). · cites it 3× “More specifically, ORS 153.076(2) provides that the state has the burden of proving a violation by only a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Whitten, 379 P.3d 707 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to ORS 153.076, certain constitutional protections that apply in criminal prosecutions do not apply in violation proceedings.”
State v. Swanson, 266 P.3d 45 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “” ORS 153.076(1); see id. at 513 (so stating).”
State v. Dahl, 57 P.3d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “It requires the state to prove a traffic violation “by a preponderance of the evidence,” the ordinary civil standard, rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard applied in criminal cases.”
State v. Meyer, 53 P.3d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “]” The trial court also found by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 153.076(2), that defendant had committed the traffic violation of violating the basic speed rule.”
State v. Bainbridge, 216 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 153.076(2). 3 In contrast to a “safety zone,” a “highway work zone” is statutorily defined as “an area identified by advance warning where road construction, repair or maintenance work is being done by highway workers on or adjacent to a highway, regardless of whether or not…”
State v. Avera, 145 P.3d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “He also assigns error to the court’s admission of Leighty’s testimony that conveyed Davie’s statements about the vehicle’s speed, arguing that the evidence was hearsay, and to the court’s admission of his own statement that he was traveling at a speed of 75 mph, on the ground…”
State v. Chen, 338 P.3d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “” Under ORS 153.076(2), “[t]he state, municipality or political subdivision [has] the burden of proving the charged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Swanson, 240 P.3d 63 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “ORS 153.076. In contrast, qualifying defendants in a criminal trial may be appointed a public defender, and the state is always represented by an attorney.”
State v. Greenlick, 152 P.3d 971 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Dahl, 185 Or App 149 , 57 P3d 965 (2002), aff'd, 336 Or 481 , 87 P3d 650 (2004) (ORS 153.076(2) provides a specific exception in the traffic violation context to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof applicable in criminal cases).”
State v. Hinton, 147 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Under ORS 153.076(2), that choice on the state’s part reduced the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.076(1) — 7 cases
State v. Swanson, 266 P.3d 45 (Or. 2011). “” ORS 153.076(1); see id. at 513 (so stating).”
State v. Whitten, 379 P.3d 707 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “Pursuant to ORS 153.076, certain constitutional protections that apply in criminal prosecutions do not apply in violation proceedings.”
State v. Benoit, 311 P.3d 874 (Or. 2013). “Under ORS 153.076, violation proceedings must be tried to the court, and certain other protections for criminal defendants are unavailable.”
State v. Swanson, 240 P.3d 63 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 153.076. In contrast, qualifying defendants in a criminal trial may be appointed a public defender, and the state is always represented by an attorney.”
State v. Fuller, 287 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.076(2) — 10 cases
State v. Dahl, 87 P.3d 650 (Or. 2004). “More specifically, ORS 153.076(2) provides that the state has the burden of proving a violation by only a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Meyer, 53 P.3d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “]” The trial court also found by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 153.076(2), that defendant had committed the traffic violation of violating the basic speed rule.”
State v. Bainbridge, 216 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 153.076(2). 3 In contrast to a “safety zone,” a “highway work zone” is statutorily defined as “an area identified by advance warning where road construction, repair or maintenance work is being done by highway workers on or adjacent to a highway, regardless of whether or not…”
State v. Dahl, 57 P.3d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “It requires the state to prove a traffic violation “by a preponderance of the evidence,” the ordinary civil standard, rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard applied in criminal cases.”
State v. Chen, 338 P.3d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “” Under ORS 153.076(2), “[t]he state, municipality or political subdivision [has] the burden of proving the charged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.076(3) — 1 case
Blake v. City of Grants Pass (D. Or. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.076(4) — 2 cases
State v. Dahl, 57 P.3d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “It requires the state to prove a traffic violation “by a preponderance of the evidence,” the ordinary civil standard, rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard applied in criminal cases.”
State v. Avera, 145 P.3d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “He also assigns error to the court’s admission of Leighty’s testimony that conveyed Davie’s statements about the vehicle’s speed, arguing that the evidence was hearsay, and to the court’s admission of his own statement that he was traveling at a speed of 75 mph, on the ground…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 153.076(6) — 1 case
Blake v. City of Grants Pass (D. Or. 2020).
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.