Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions

ORS 135.755
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 and 135.705, 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 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


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021