Trial within 90 days of notice unless continuance granted
Source:
Section 135.763 — Trial within 90 days of notice unless continuance granted, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors135.html.
See also annotations under ORS 134.520 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Letter of inmate to district attorney requesting information concerning status of pending charge of theft was not “notice of requesting trial” pursuant to this section. State v. Williams, 39 Or App 223, 592 P2d 226 (1979)
Where notice to district attorney of request for trial contained only “/S/” on the line above word “defendant” but ribbon copy that defendant had filed with clerk of court had been signed by defendant personally, copy informed district attorney of defendant’s desire to avail himself of rights under ORS 135.760 et seq. State v. Holden, 41 Or App 661, 598 P2d 1252 (1979)
Once inmate requests speedy trial, this section also requires inmate’s express consent to continuance of trial of pending criminal charges. State v. Clarkson, 87 Or App 342, 742 P2d 657 (1987)
Court may grant motion for continuance for good cause where essential witness is hospitalized and unavailable for trial. State v. Guest, 103 Or App 594, 798 P2d 708 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where neither district attorney nor defendant requested continuance, court had no authority to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss when trial was not commenced within 90 days of receipt of notice; court will not read “good cause” exception into requirement that state or defendant request continuance. State v. Person, 113 Or App 40, 831 P2d 700 (1992), aff’d 316 Or 585, 853 P2d 813 (1993)
Where prisoner was incarcerated outside of state, 90-day period did not commence until prisoner was returned to custody of Department of Corrections. Danielson v. Maass, 123 Or App 366, 860 P2d 286 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where court raised issue of defendant’s speedy trial request at arraignment hearing and explained that granting defendant’s request for continuance meant that trial may not occur within 90-day period and defendant and defense counsel indicated assent, defendant waived right to speedy trial. State v. Hunter, 316 Or 192, 850 P2d 366 (1993)
Penalty-phase proceeding is not subject to speedy trial request because no charge is pending at that phase. State v. Pinnell, 319 Or 438, 877 P2d 635 (1994)
Where inmate is released from incarceration after making request for early trial, state has no duty to provide early trial. State v. Becker, 224 Or App 56, 197 P3d 44 (2008)
Where defense counsel requested that court remove case from trial docket to permit defendant to undergo psychiatric evaluation at Oregon State Hospital and court granted continuance, 90 day period no longer applies and court is not required to reschedule new date for case within 90 days. State v. Ashcroft, 260 Or App 1, 316 P3d 355 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
Overcrowded dockets may constitute good cause to exceed 90-day speedy trial deadline only if prosecution provides evidence demonstrating difficulty or impracticability of holding trial by deadline. State v. Storkus, 308 Or App 257, 479 P3d 320 (2020)
Up to date