ORS 135.747¹
Effect of delay in bringing defendant to trial

If a defendant charged with a crime, whose trial has not been postponed upon the application of the defendant or by the consent of the defendant, is not brought to trial within a reasonable period of time, the court shall order the accusatory instrument to be dismissed. [Formerly 134.120]

See also annota­tions under ORS 134.120 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

The state's preference to try a codefendant first did not cause improper delay. State v. Tyrrell, 8 Or App 127, 492 P2d 485 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant who seeks outright dismissal with prejudice may take op­tion of claiming constitu­tional rights to speedy trial have been violated and not invoke this sec­tion. State v. Dykast, 300 Or 368, 712 P2d 79 (1985)

Delay of more than two years caused by Supreme Court review of pretrial mo­tion was not unreasonable or prejudicial to defendant. State v. Moylett, 123 Or App 600, 860 P2d 886 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Prejudice to defendant is not re­quired for dismissal due to lack of timely pros­e­cu­­tion. State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 869 P2d 859 (1994)

Dismissal due to failure to comply with statutory require­ment for speedy trial is without prejudice. State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 869 P2d 859 (1994)

Potential ability of state to reindict following dismissal is irrelevant considera­tion. State v. Green, 140 Or App 308, 915 P2d 460 (1996)

Date of issuance or reissuance of case is starting date for calculating period of time state takes to bring defendant to trial. State v. Hampton, 152 Or App 742, 954 P2d 1267 (1998)

Where defendant causes postpone­ment through mo­tion, postpone­ment period attributable to defendant includes only reasonable time for judge to study legal ques­tion raised and issue decision. State v. Hampton, 152 Or App 742, 954 P2d 1267 (1998)

Eight-year delay between indict­ment and arrest is presumptively prejudicial. State v. Rohlfing, 155 Or App 127, 963 P2d 87 (1998)

Where defendant does not expressly con­sent to delay, con­sent may be shown by defendant's voluntary con­duct in avoidance of trial. State v. Kirsch, 162 Or App 392, 987 P2d 556 (1999)

Dismissal due to failure to comply with statutory require­ment for speedy trial does not deprive prosecutor of authority to submit case to grand jury for considera­tion of addi­tional charges arising from same incident. State v. Johnson, 172 Or App 29, 17 P3d 1087 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant is responsible for por­tion of delay, defendant may still assert that por­tion attributable to state was sufficiently unreasonable to justify dismissal. State v. Harman, 179 Or App 611, 40 P3d 1079 (2002); State v. Johnson, 339 Or 69, 116 P3d 879 (2005)

Mere failure on part of defendant to insist state bring case to trial is not implied con­sent to delay. State v. Johnson, 193 Or App 250, 90 P3d 4 (2004), modified 194 Or App 28, 92 P3d 766 (2004), aff'd 339 Or 69, 116 P3d 879 (2005); State v. Adams, 339 Or 104, 116 P3d 898 (2005), Sup Ct review allowed

Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness of delay include nature of charges, length of delay and state's explana­tion or lack of explana­tion for failing to bring case to trial. State v. Johnson, 193 Or App 250, 90 P3d 4 (2004), modified194 Or App 28, 92 P3d 766 (2004), aff'd 339 Or 69, 116 P3d 879 (2005); State v. Adams, 339 Or 104, 116 P3d 898 (2005), Sup Ct review allowed

Right of defendant charged with crime to be brought to trial within reasonable period of time is applicable to all times during which prosecutor has power to move case forward. State v. Johnson, 339 Or 69, 116 P3d 879 (2005)

Fact that time frame for serving particular warrant was within typical time frame for serving warrants within jurisdic­tion does not es­tab­lish time frame as being reasonable for speedy trial purposes. State v. Davids, 339 Or 96, 116 P3d 894 (2005)

Statute of limita­tions for of­fense provides indicator of legislative view re­gard­ing what constitutes unreasonable delay in pro­ceed­ing against defendant for particular of­fense. State v. Adams, 339 Or 104, 116 P3d 898 (2005)

Where inmate defendant is aware of pending charges and knowingly fails to file notice requesting trial under ORS 135.760 (Notice requesting early trial on pending charge) or knowingly fails to file trial demand under ORS 135.775 (Agreement on Detainers), whichever is applicable, defendant is precluded from asserting that sub­se­quent period of delay violates statutory speedy trial right. State v. Ayers, 203 Or App 683, 126 P3d 1241 (2006), modified 207 Or App 668, 143 P3d 251 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Viola­tions are subject to dismissal for unreasonable delay in bringing matter to trial. State v. Greenlick, 210 Or App 662, 152 P3d 971 (2007)

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Rowley, 6 Or App 13, 485 P2d 1120 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­135.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­135ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
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.
Currency Information