State v. Schindler

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 09-14-2016
  • Case #: A154305
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Ortega, J.; & Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

By challenging venue under State v. Mills, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on venue, not acquittal or dismissal of his charges.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, arguing that the State did not adequately prove venue was proper where the charges were brought. Defendant argued that he was entitled to either a judgment of acquittal or dismissal of the indictment. At trial, Defendant successfully suppressed evidence tying him to the county where charges were brought and then requested a dismissal because the State could not prove venue. In State v. Mills, 354 Or. 350 (2013), “the Supreme Court held that the right to a trial in a particular place protected by Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution is a procedural right not to be dragged away to a distant place of trial.” Defendant’s trial happened before Mills was decided and although the requested remedy is not consistent with Mills, insists it is appropriate because Defendant told the State the venue would be an issue at trial and the State failed to prove it. The Court held that Defendant’s requested relief was not appropriate because it was not allowed under Mills, but the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on venue. Reversed and remanded. 

Advanced Search