State v. Keys

In Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or. 283, (1952), the court explained that “It follows from the express language of the [Oregon] constitutional provision and from the authorities cited that unless a defendant validly waives indictment, he cannot be tried upon information filed by the district attorney. A judgment rendered upon an information without waiver of indictment would be void.”

The State petitioned for review “to consider whether a defective waiver of a preliminary hearing is a jurisdictional defect.” The Court of Appeals evaluated Defendant’s unpreserved waiver challenge, and reversed Defendant’s conviction after finding the waiver was defective. On appeal the Defendant argued if a waiver is ineffective, then it causes the circuit court to lose subject matter jurisdiction. The state contended it is a “personal constitutional right,” and for the issue to be heard on appeal it has to be preserved. In Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or. 283, (1952), the court explained that “It follows from the express language of the [Oregon] constitutional provision and from the authorities cited that unless a defendant validly waives indictment, he cannot be tried upon information filed by the district attorney. A judgment rendered upon an information without waiver of indictment would be void.” The Court found there was no finding by the Court of Appeals regarding whether their discretion was appropriate “to reach the validity of defendant’s waiver.” The Court of Appeals must consider… whether it should exercise its discretion to reach the validity of defendant’s waiver under the plain error doctrine.” The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.