State v. Miller, 439 P.3d 504

Defendant indicted on 23 sexual-offense counts (rape, unlawful sexual penetration, incest, sodomy, sexual abuse) involving seven alleged victims, plus one count of witness tampering (ORS 162.285).
Defendant demurred to the indictment, arguing it failed to allege a lawful basis for joinder of the separate offenses; the trial court denied the demurrer.
Defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest to four counts of first-degree sexual abuse; remaining counts were dismissed; defendant reserved right to appeal the pretrial ruling.
On appeal, the issue was whether the indictment alleged a sufficient basis for joinder under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A)-(C).
The witness-tampering count consisted only of a single-paragraph statutory allegation and no language or facts connecting it to the sexual-offense counts as required for joinder.
The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the demurrer and remanded to allow defendant to decide whether to withdraw the conditional plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment alleged a permissible basis for joinder of the witness-tampering count with sexual-offense counts under ORS 132.560(1)(b)	State: the tampering count is properly joined under subsection (C) as part of a common scheme or plan with the sexual-offense counts	Defendant: indictment fails to allege the statutory joinder language or factual allegations connecting the tampering count to the sexual-offense counts	Reversed — indictment did not allege statutory joinder language or facts sufficient to show the offenses were connected; demurrer should have been sustained

State v. Warren, 364 Or. 105 (2018) (an indictment charging multiple offenses must allege a joinder basis; courts may consider only the charging instrument)
State v. Taylor, 364 Or. 364 (2019) (indictment may allege joinder either by quoting statute or by alleging facts sufficient to establish compliance)
State v. Pinnell, 319 Or. 438 (1994) (courts cannot consider facts outside the charging instrument when evaluating indictments)
State v. Carter, 295 Or. App. 145 (2018) (when alleging a common scheme or plan, the state must use language that specifically connects the crimes or specifies the scheme)
State v. Marks, 286 Or. App. 775 (2017) (interpreting requirements for alleging common-scheme joinder)
State v. Keith, 294 Or. App. 265 (2018) (construing ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C) and the need for connecting allegations)
State v. Page, 290 Or. App. 562 (2018) (defendant may enter a conditional plea reserving the right to appeal an adverse pretrial ruling; appellate review standard for demurrer)