2017 ORS 136.535¹
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 (Review of trial court order granting a new trial on court’s own initiative) 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]

See also annota­tions under ORS 136.851 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Mo­tion for new trial should have been granted where evidence in the pos­ses­sion of the prosecutor would reasonably have been anticipated to enable the produc­tion of evidence of substantial significance for the de­fense. State v. Williams, 11 Or App 255, 500 P2d 722 (1972)

Where prosecutor made objec­tionable remarks during closing argu­ment about defendant’s expert witness and counsel that were inappropriate and highly likely to influence jury, trial court’s failure to sustain defendant’s objec­tions or to grant mo­tion for new trial on grounds of miscon­duct of prevailing party was reversible error and defendant not re­quired to move for mistrial or to request curative instruc­tion to preserve error. State v. Lundbom, 96 Or App 458, 773 P2d 11 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant did not move for new trial but only raised for first time on ap­peal argu­ment that jury’s verdicts were fatally inconsistent, mo­tion for di­rected verdict did not preserve as error alleged inconsistency in jury’s verdicts because mo­tion for di­rected verdict comes before jury renders its verdict. State v. Smith, 101 Or App 483, 791 P2d 500 (1990)

Where appellants failed to file mo­tions for new trial or to obtain extensions of time for filing within five days after entry of judg­ment, mo­tion for new trial filed after five-day period was untimely. State v. Provonsha, 107 Or App 571, 813 P2d 563 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant waived basis for new trial mo­tion when defendant stated at trial that he had no objec­tion to jury verdicts. State v. Kelley, 114 Or App 262, 835 P2d 145 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Juror miscon­duct used to attack verdict must be miscon­duct extrinsic to communica­tion between jurors during deliberative process, or miscon­duct based on fraud, bribery, forcible coercion or other obstruc­tion of justice. State v. Jones, 126 Or App 224, 868 P2d 18 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Penland, 6 Or App 255, 486 P2d 1314 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 652, 653, 655 (1972)

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.