Thе state appeals an order of the circuit court affirming an order of dismissal by the district court of a charge of failure to yiеld right of way. Defendant did not appear in circuit court or herе.
Defendant’s district court trial was set for 3:00 on the afternoon of Mаy 19, 1976. On that day, the President of the United States visited Portland and the Portland Pоlice Bureau was required to provide security for the presidеntial party. 1 As a result, the presiding judge of the district court for Multnomah Cоunty ordered that all traffic offense trials scheduled for that day be reset.
About 2 p.m. on May 19, the officer who had cited defendant аnd who had not been required to participate in the presidential security detail, appeared in the courtroom of thе judge to whom the case had been assigned for trial. He was advised by the judge that defendant’s case, and at least one other in which the officer was involved, had been set over and that he was excused from further attendance on the court.
Subsequently, the judge disсovered that defendant, who apparently had not been nоtified of the setover, had come to court and had missed some work as a result. The judge thereupon inquired into the question of defendant’s inconvenience in appearing for trial and dismissed the case on his own motion, over the state’s objection.
On apрeal, the circuit court dismissed the case "in furtherance of justiсe” pursuant to ORS 135.755. 2 The reason given by the circuit court for dismissal was thаt *432 the defendant had spent a day in court and lost a day’s pay, which would exceed any penalty which might be imposed. The district cоurt order, however, recited no such fact and the deputy district аttorney represented to the circuit court only that the defendant had missed "some work” in order to appear in court at 3 p.m.
The discretion authorized by ORS 135.755 is not absolute. It is to be applied within thе bounds of legal principles. No speedy trial issue is presented. Defendant has not been harassed. The inconvenience suffеred by the defendant was not great. His loss of pay, whatever that may have been, should be taken into account in the imposition of a penalty if he is convicted. The setover was caused by an unfortunate accident of judicial administration and modem life. There was no fault of the prosecution to suggest the need for prophylaxis.
Dismissal is a severe action with the possibility of unforeseen consequences to the unseen public. The public’s right to enforce the traffic law could have significance beyond this case if defendant is a multiple offender or if civil litigation arises frоm the same facts. While it would take less in a traffic case than in a more grievous criminal case to tip the scales of justicе in favor of a defendant, we hold in this case as we did in
State v. Shepherd,
Reversed and remanded for trial.
Notes
In
State v. Misten,
ORS 135.755 provides:
'The court may, either on its own motion or upon the apрlication of the district attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order the proceedings to be dismissed; but in that case, the reasons of the dismissal shall be set forth in the order, which shall be entered in the journal.”