Contents of indictment
Source:
Section 132.550 — Contents of indictment, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors132.html.
See also annotations under ORS 132.520, 132.530 and 132.540 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
A murder indictment charging failure to provide “adequate sustenance, and medical and hygienic care” was sufficiently particular. State v. House, 260 Or 138, 489 P2d 381 (1971)
The names of coparticipants were not necessary to fully inform the defendant of the crime charged. State v. Nussbaum, 261 Or 87, 491 P2d 1013 (1971)
Since the word “theft” is a term of art constituting a single offense committed by the doing of an act that results in the “appropriation” of property of another with the intent to substantially interfere with the property rights of another an indictment alleging that the defendant committed “theft” provides adequate notice of the crime charged. State v. Jim, 13 Or App 201, 508 P2d 462 (1973)
An indictment for theft by receiving in the first degree was insufficient in absence of allegation that the stolen property was received by buying it, or that the stolen property was sold after being received. State v. Dechand, 13 Or App 530, 511 P2d 430 (1973)
An indictment is merely a formal method of initiating criminal proceedings and identifying the crime charged. State v. Shadley, 16 Or App 113, 517 P2d 324 (1973)
Trial courts have little or no discretion to hold indictment insufficient for failure to include information not constituting essential element of crime charged. State v. Shadley, 16 Or App 113, 517 P2d 324 (1973)
Where terms used in indictment are precisely defined in criminal statute, indictment need not explain terms for defendant to be sufficiently informed of nature of charge. State v. Cannon, 17 Or App 379, 521 P2d 1326 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Indictment charging second degree burglary pursuant to ORS 164.215, which failed to specify crime defendant intended to commit when he allegedly unlawfully entered building, was fatally defective. State v. Sanders, 280 Or 685, 572 P2d 1307 (1977)
Indictment based on felony murder (ORS 163.115) need not include statement that victim was not participant in the crime. State v. Reams, 47 Or App 907, 616 P2d 498 (1980), aff’d on other grounds, 292 Or 1, 636 P2d 913 (1981)
Where indictment for criminal nonsupport (ORS 163.555) identified the crime charged and the applicable statute and alleged that defendant had failed to support his minor children and that he had “unlawfully and knowingly” done so and where defendant needed to look only to the statute to which he was directed to determine that “unlawfully” meant “without lawful excuse,” the indictment was sufficient. State v. Mitchell, 61 Or App 127, 655 P2d 632 (1982), Sup Ct. review denied
Where two counts of indictment did not designate county in which offense was committed, court erred in not granting demurrer. State v. Dunn, 99 Or App 519, 783 P2d 29 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Indictment need not recite elements of crime to sufficiently identify charged offense. State v. Montez, 309 Or 564, 789 P2d 1352 (1990)
Where indictment for racketeering states particular circumstances of enterprise and of each predicate offense, statutory wording is sufficient statement of nexus between predicate offenses. State v. Fair, 326 Or 485, 953 P2d 383 (1998)
Whether indictment substantially conforming to statutory language is subject to demurrer based on lack of specificity depends on whether discovery is adequate to inform defendant of specific conduct being alleged. State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 999 P2d 1220 (2000), modified 169 Or App 78, 7 P3d 738 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Count may allege venue for offense charged by reference to county designation contained elsewhere in indictment. State v. Huckins, 176 Or App 276, 31 P3d 485 (2001)
Defendant may not, on appeal, raise unpreserved challenge to sufficiency of facts stated in charging instrument. State v. Caldwell, 187 Or App 720, 69 P3d 830 (2003), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant seeks to require state to make indictment more definite and certain, defendant has means other than demurrer to indictment to satisfy defendant’s right to know theory, facts and circumstances relied upon by state. State v. Hale, 335 Or 612, 75 P3d 448 (2003)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State v. Howard, 6 Or App 230, 486 P2d 1301 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Schulman, 6 Or App 81, 485 P2d 1252 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Zimmerlee, 261 Or 49, 492 P2d 795 (1972)
Up to date