State v. Vasquez, 336 Or. 598

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that the 1987 filing of a complainant’s information did not trigger the defendant’s right to have justice administered without delay under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. Because the information was insufficient to commence a felony prosecution without an indictment or constitutionally prescribed alternative procedure, the delay before indictment did not violate the Oregon or federal speedy-trial guarantees. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

Holdings

1. The Article I, section 10, guarantee that justice be administered without delay attaches when an official action is sufficient, standing alone, to commence a prosecution—ordinarily an indictment or a constitutionally authorized alternative—not merely when a complainant's information is filed.
2. The 1987 complainant's information did not trigger defendant's Article I, section 10, right to have justice administered without delay, so the 11-year period beginning with that filing did not establish a state constitutional speedy-trial violation.
3. The 1987 filing did not trigger defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial protection because no indictment was outstanding and defendant was not arrested or held to answer on the Oregon charge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 1987 filing of a complainant's information in district court triggered defendant's right under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution to have justice administered without delay.
2. Whether the 11-year period between the 1987 complainant's information and the 1997 indictment violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Disposition

reversed