2015 ORS 131.135¹
When prosecution commenced

A prosecution is commenced when a warrant or other process is issued, provided that the warrant or other process is executed without unreasonable delay. [1973 c.836 §7]

See also annota­tions under ORS 131.130 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Where warrant for defendant's arrest for unlawfully obtaining public assistance was executed three years and four months from date of alleged of­fense and state offered no reason for delay, indict­ment should have been dismissed. State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896, 676 P2d 344 (1984)

Indict­ment containing two dates on which purportedly returned, one inside and one outside Statute of Limita­tions, does not satisfy statutory require­ment that indict­ment show pros­e­cu­­tion was commenced within period of limita­tion. State v. Bovee, 76 Or App 572, 710 P2d 786 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where warrant was served on defendant two years and eight months after indict­ment was returned but defendant made no claim of prejudice based on oppressive pretrial incarcera­tion, anxiety and concern, or impair­ment of ability to defend, trial court properly denied mo­tion to dismiss indict­ment on basis of unreasonable delay. State v. Chinn, 115 Or App 662, 840 P2d 92 (1992)

For purposes of time limita­tions, "pros­e­cu­­tion" refers to crim­i­nal ac­tion itself rather than filing of accusatory instru­ment. Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 36 P3d 516 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Where matter was resubmitted to grand jury and new indict­ment was issued under different case number prior to dismissal of identical earlier indict­ment, new indict­ment did not relate back to dismissed indict­ment. Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 36 P3d 516 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Require­ment that warrant be executed without unreasonable delay does not apply to proba­tion viola­tion pro­ceed­ing. State v. Lindquist, 192 Or App 498, 86 P3d 103 (2004)

For purposes of time limita­tions, "other process" does not include filing of accusatory instru­ment. State v. Williams, 232 Or App 303, 222 P3d 31 (2009)

Prosecu­tion commences when warrant or other process is issued, not when defendant receives actual notice that pros­e­cu­­tion will commence. State v. Grierson, 245 Or App 195, 261 P3d 1269 (2011)

Notes of Decisions

For purposes of time limita­tions, "pros­e­cu­­tion" refers to crim­i­nal ac­tion itself rather than filing of accusatory instru­ment. Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 36 P3d 516 (2001), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 131—Preliminary Provisions; Limitations; Jurisdiction; Venue; Criminal Forfeiture; Crime Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 131, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.