State v. McFarland

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 12-29-2011
  • Case #: A139991
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Rosenblum, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In determining whether an arrest warrant's return of service form provided notice, a form has no evidentiary value when it lacks information to identify the officer who executed the arrest warrant.

Defendant was indicted for one count of identity theft but was not arraigned until 17 months later. The arrest warrant was issued in October 2006 when he was in custody for other matters. A partially completed return of service form was filed in November 2006. Defendant received notice of the charge in February 2008 and was arraigned in March 2008. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial under ORS 135.747 was denied by the trial court, finding that defendant received notice in November 2006 and decided that the delay was reasonable. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was not served with the arrest warrant in November 2006, and even if he was, the delay was unreasonable. The state argued that defendant waived his speedy trial rights when he did not supply written notice to the district attorney within 90 days of November 2006. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding because the return of service form lacked the signature and printed name of the executing officer; as such, there could not have been any waiver of rights. The Court accepted the state's concession that the delay was unreasonable, noting that the concession was well taken. Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment of dismissal.

Advanced Search