State v. Chase

Under ORS 131.135, in consideration of the totality of the circumstances and considering any circumstance, a warrant is “executed without unreasonable delay” to “commence” the prosecution when the state is “aware of a defendant’s location but fails to take any action to executive the warrant” or “takes only de minimis action.” State v. Washington, 266 Or App 133, 150 (2014), rev den, 356 Or 767 (2015).

Petitioner was indicted for unlawful possession of methamphetamine in Coos County. She received a letter informing her of the indictment at her Portland address and summoning her to appear for arraignment. When Petitioner failed to appear, an arrest warrant was issued. Four years later, she was arrested on the warrant and arraigned the next day.

Petitioner appealed, challenging the delayed commencement of the prosecution under ORS 478.894, which requires prosecution to “commence” within three years. Further, because the execution of the warrant occurred 57-months after the date it was issued, she further alleged that under ORS 131.135, the warrant was executed without unreasonable delay.

On appeal, the court found that the state’s actions met the de minimis standard because the trial court issued the arrest warrant, officers entered the warrant into the statewide system, and Petitioner acknowledged receiving notice of the warrant by mail. However, the court held that, here, the state’s efforts were insufficient nonetheless because Petitioner had resided at the same address for the duration of the 57-month period and Portland officers had made no attempt to execute the warrant at her home. Thus, the court reversed because the “statutory time limitations contained in ORS 131.125 are specifically designed to prevent this type of protracted, haphazard prosecution.” State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896, 900 (1984). 

Reversed.