Court Opinion

ID: 9854567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:09:18.585564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:09.586824
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
In my opinion the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because the name of his wife was en*262dorsed thereon as a witness can be construed as a demurrer on the ground that the indictment did not conform to the requirements of ORS 132.510 to 132.570, 132.590, 132.610 to 132.690, 132.710 and 132.720. The trial court could only have dismissed the indictment with leave to resubmit the matter to the grand jury on the theory that the indictment was deficient in form. In doing so the court erred.①
If we treat the order dismissing the indictment as an order sustaining a demurrer under ORS 135.630(2) on account of a defect in the form of the indictment, the state is entitled to appeal, and the judgment should be reversed.

 ORS '132.590.