State v. Haji, 462 P.3d 1240

A grand jury returned a seven-count indictment charging Haji with multiple felonies arising from two alleged entries into a victim’s apartment the same day; the indictment described each offense by statutory language but did not state a statutory basis for joinder of counts.
After the Court of Appeals’ decision in Poston required indictments to allege the basis for joinder, the district attorney moved (with court leave) to amend the indictment to add joinder allegations that tracked ORS 132.560(1)(b) but did not add new historical facts.
Haji demurred, arguing the omission was substantive and that only a grand jury could find and allege joinder facts; the trial court allowed the DA to amend and denied the demurrer.
At trial Haji was convicted on some counts and acquitted on others; the Court of Appeals affirmed the amendment and convictions.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide whether (a) ORS 132.560 or (b) Article VII (Amended), § 5(6) of the Oregon Constitution requires resubmission to a grand jury for joinder allegations (i.e., whether the DA’s amendment was permissible).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Haji)	Held
Whether ORS 132.560 requires the grand jury (and only the grand jury) to find and allege the statutory basis for joinder in an indictment	ORS 132.560 does not assign exclusive authority to the grand jury to make or plead the statutory joinder determinations; charging instruments include informations and complaints, and courts may consolidate on judicial finding	The statute implicitly requires the grand jury alone to find and allege joinder facts	Held: ORS 132.560 does not require a grand jury (and only a grand jury) to allege joinder bases in an indictment
Whether Article VII (Amended), § 5(6) precludes the DA from filing an amended indictment to add joinder allegations (i.e., whether the omission was a defect "in form" or "in substance")	The constitutional phrase permits the DA to amend defects in form; joinder allegations are not essential to show that an offense has been committed and thus are amendable with court approval	The omission was substantive because joinder allegations are historical facts about the relationship of acts and thus must be found and alleged by the grand jury; DA amendment therefore unlawful	Held: § 5(6) allows the DA, with court approval, to amend indictments to cure defects in form; the added joinder allegations were defects in form, not substance, so the amendment was permissible

State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103 (Oregon Supreme Court) (multifactor test for whether an amendment is a permissible form amendment)
State v. Reinke, 354 Or 98 (Oregon Supreme Court) (grand jury must find and plead elements of crimes; context for §5 interpretation)
State v. Warren, 364 Or 105 (Oregon Supreme Court) (indictments charging multiple offenses must allege a basis for joinder)
State v. Moyer, 76 Or 396 (Oregon Supreme Court) (district attorney may not amend indictments as to matters of substance)
State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 (Oregon Supreme Court) (application of Wimber and form/substance distinction)
State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137 (Oregon Court of Appeals) (held indictments must allege bases for joinder)