Legal Opinion

State v. Hunter

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1993No. CC CM 89-1083; CA A66033; SC S39598PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

In this criminal case, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that the state had failed to bring him to trial within 90 days of receipt of his speedy trial notice. Trial within 90 days is required by ORS 135.763(1), set out infra, subject to certain exceptions. The trial court denied the motion, finding that defendant’s counsel had “waived the 90-day period.” The case proceeded to trial. Defendant was convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that defendant himself had “consented to the delay.” State v. Hunter, 113 Or App 713, 719, 833 P2d…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. ClarksonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  3. State v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. RogersOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Moore v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. McDonnellOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. PersonOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API