Legal Opinion

State v. GLUSHKO

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 2011No. CC 209903037; CA A142224; SC S059136; CC 981756M, 990259M; CA A141888, A141889; SC S059137PublishedCited by 38 opinions

(Consolidated for argument and opinion)

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

ORS 135.747 provides that,

“[i]f 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.”

The issue in these two cases is whether defendants’ failures to appear at scheduled hearings amount to “consent” to a delay in proceedings within the meaning of that statute, and, if not, whether any delays caused by such failures to appear were nevertheless reasonable. We conclude that a mere…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. BrayOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1961

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. McNallyOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  3. SAIF v. WardOregon Supreme Court · 2022
  4. Owen v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  5. State v. StraughanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

33 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