2017 ORS 135.755¹
Dismissal on motion of court or district attorney

The court may, either of its own motion or upon the application of the district attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order the proceedings to be dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal shall be set forth in the order, which shall be entered in the register. [Formerly 134.150; 1985 c.540 §35]

See also annota­tions under ORS 134.150 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Dismissal of a misdemeanor charge in district court in order to consolidate it with a felony charge arising from the same transac­tion is possible and is no bar to further pro­ceed­ings on the misdemeanor charge, notwithstanding this sec­tion. State v. Leverich, 14 Or App 222, 511 P2d 1265 (1973), aff’d 269 Or 45, 522 P2d 1390 (1974)

A dismissal which serves no purpose other than to render moot a party’s statutory right to seek appellate review is not ordered to “further justice.” State v. Hoare, 20 Or App 439, 532 P2d 240 (1975)

Having withstood a general constitu­tional challenge, this sec­tion does not permit the trial judge to reconsider on a case-by-case basis whether “furtherance of justice” requires the state to forego its statutory ap­peal rights. State v. Hoare, 20 Or App 439, 532 P2d 240 (1975)

Where prosecutors could not find the appropriate file during arraign­ment and refused to proceed without it, it was not “in furtherance of justice” for the court to dismiss the charge with prejudice because of the resulting delay. State v. Shepherd, 21 Or App 52, 533 P2d 353 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion must be read together with ORS 135.703 (Crimes subject to being compromised) and 135.705 (Satisfaction of injured person), and thus dismissal on basis of civil compromise was improper where there was no written acknowledg­ment by per­son injured that he had received satisfac­tion for injury. State v. Martindale, 30 Or App 1127, 569 P2d 659 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion applies only to crim­i­nal cases, and a pro­ceed­ing to declare per­son habitual traffic offender is civil. State v. Wright, 34 Or App 663, 579 P2d 266 (1978)

Where trial of major traffic crime had been postponed twice on defendant’s own mo­tion and twice because of clerical errors in court administrator’s office and defendant demonstrated no prejudice from the delay, dismissal by trial judge was abuse of discre­tion. State v. Bethune, 51 Or App 271, 624 P2d 1113 (1981)

Dismissal authority is limited to ac­tion taken before trial. State ex rel Penn v. Norblad, 323 Or 464, 918 P2d 426 (1996); State v. Peekema, 328 Or 342, 976 P2d 1128 (1999)

Where constitu­tional viola­tion is absent, inconvenience, expense or delay caused by pros­e­cu­­tion of crim­i­nal charge is insufficient ground to warrant dismissal. State v. Stough, 148 Or App 353, 939 P2d 652 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Where trial court was simultaneously presented with defendant’s request to plead guilty under ORS 135.335 (Pleading by defendant) and prosecutor’s mo­tion to dismiss charges, court had discre­tionary authority under this sec­tion to dismiss charges “in furtherance of justice.” Eby v. Premo, 282 Or App 114, 386 P3d 224 (2016), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.