2017 ORS 136.295¹
Application of ORS 136.290
  • when extensions granted

(1) ORS 136.290 (Limit on custody of defendant prior to trial) does not apply to persons charged with crimes that are not releasable offenses under ORS 135.240 (Releasable offenses) or to persons charged with conspiracy to commit murder, or charged with attempted murder, or to prisoners serving sentences resulting from prior convictions.

(2)(a) If the defendant is extradited from another jurisdiction, the 60-day period shall not commence until the defendant enters the State of Oregon, provided that law enforcement authorities from the other jurisdiction and this state have conducted the extradition with all practicable speed. The original 60-day period shall not be extended more than an additional 60 days, except where delay has been caused by the defendant in opposing the extradition.

(b) For purposes of this subsection, an extradition is presumed to have been conducted with all practicable speed if it has been conducted within 90 days after the date the defendant has been delivered to an agent of this state.

(3) Any reasonable delay resulting from examination or hearing regarding the defendant’s mental condition or competency to stand trial, or resulting from other motion or appeal by the defendant, shall not be included in the 60-day period.

(4)(a) If a victim or witness to the crime in question is unable to testify within the original 60-day period because of injuries received at the time the alleged crime was committed or upon a showing of good cause, the court may order an extension of custody and postponement of the date of the trial of not more than 60 additional days. The court, for the same reason, may order a second extension of custody and postponement of the date of the trial of not more than 60 days, but in no event shall the defendant be held in custody before trial for more than a total of 180 days. A court may grant an extension based upon good cause as described in paragraph (b)(C), (D) or (E) of this subsection only if requested by the defendant or defense counsel or by the court on its own motion.

(b) As used in this subsection, “good cause” means situations in which:

(A) The court failed to comply with ORS 136.145 (Setting of court dates when presence of victim required) and the victim is unable to attend the trial;

(B) The victim or an essential witness for either the state or the defense is unable to testify at the trial because of circumstances beyond the control of the victim or witness;

(C) The attorney for the defendant cannot reasonably be expected to try the case within the 60-day period;

(D) The attorney for the defendant has recently been appointed and cannot be ready to try the case within the 60-day period;

(E) The attorney for the defendant is unable to try the case within the 60-day period because of conflicting schedules;

(F) Scientific evidence is necessary and because of the complexity of the procedures it would be unreasonable to have the procedures completed within the 60-day period;

(G) The defendant has filed notice under ORS 161.309 (Notice and report prerequisite to defense) of the defendant’s intention to rely upon a defense of insanity, partial responsibility or diminished capacity;

(H) The defendant has filed any notice of an affirmative defense within the last 20 days of the 60-day period;

(I) A claim under ORS 147.515 (Claims), or a motion under ORS 147.522 (Issue that will have impact on trial), relating to victims’ rights is pending, the court has considered the factors described in ORS 147.525 (Rescheduling matters affected by claim, response or motion) and the court has determined that the trial date should be rescheduled subject to the time limit provided in ORS 147.525 (Rescheduling matters affected by claim, response or motion); or

(J) The defendant has received discovery of digital video evidence from a video camera worn upon a law enforcement officer’s person and, though discovery has occurred in a reasonably timely manner, editing of the digital video evidence is necessary.

(5) Any period following defendant’s arrest in which the defendant is not actually in custody shall not be included in the 60-day computation. [1971 c.323 §5; 1973 c.836 §236; 1999 c.923 §2; amendments by 1999 c.923 §4 repealed by 2001 c.870 §19; 2003 c.127 §3; 2009 c.178 §34; 2009 c.357 §1; 2015 c.550 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Person charged with mur­der is eligible for release subject to ORS 135.240 (Releasable offenses) restric­tion on availability of bail where proof is evident or presump­tion strong that per­son is guilty. Collins v. Foster, 299 Or 90, 698 P2d 953 (1985)

Excep­tion to ORS 136.290 (Limit on custody of defendant prior to trial) sixty-day release require­ment when delay results from mo­tion filed by accused, does not apply to withdrawal mo­tion filed by counsel based on counsel’s conflict of interest. Brophy v. Burks, 307 Or 62, 762 P2d 1017 (1988)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 136—Criminal Trials, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors136.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 136, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano136.­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.