State v. Peterson
287 P.3d 1243
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Information filed Sept. 26, 2008 charging DUII and refusal; arraigned Oct. 1, 2008; multiple status resets and delays from court scheduling, witness unavailability, and other motions leading to a 19-month total delay.
- Hearing and trial dates were repeatedly reset (Sept. 2009 to Aug. 2010) due to scheduling, Machuca motions, and trial logistics for a death-penalty case; defendant did not consent to all delays.
- Court attributed several delays to defendant’s requests, some to the state, and some to court scheduling errors; Machuca-related delays were discussed as potentially reasonable.
- Defense argued the cumulative 19 months was unreasonable under ORS 135.747 because largely unexplained or improper delays persisted.
- Trial court denied dismissal; appellate court held the delay unreasonable and reversed for dismissal under ORS 135.747.
- Remand instructed for entry of judgment of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 19-month state-caused delay violated ORS 135.747 | State contends only a five-month scheduling error was unreasonable | Brewer argues the entire 19 months were unreasonable | Unreasonable; dismissal required; remand for dismissal |
| Whether Machuca-related delays were reasonable | Machuca delay argued as reasonable due to fast-track review | Delay should be scrutinized as part of overall unreasonable period | Reasonable under circumstances; counted toward overall delay |
| Whether final delays for death-penalty jury management were reasonable | Delays due to logistics with large jury pool are ordinary trial scheduling | Such delays contributed to lengthy period without justification | Reasonable; not dispositive to finding of unreasonable delay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Glushko/Little, 351 Or 297 (2011) (determine delay by subtracting defendant-consented periods; assess reasonableness with attendant circumstances)
- State v. Johnson, 339 Or 69 (2005) (test for determining reasonableness of delay)
- State v. Myers, 225 Or App 666 (2009) (discusses overall delay vs. unjustified portion in reasonableness analysis)
- State v. Adams, 339 Or 104 (2005) (consent and lack of objection in delay analysis; factors for reasonableness)
- State v. Brunoe, 204 Or App 749 (2006) (90%/180-day/one-year standards for timely disposition in misdemeanors)