# State v. Person

> Oregon Supreme Court · June 17, 1993 · 316 Or. 585

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580433

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. GERALD OSCAR PERSON, Respondent on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 17, 1993
- **Citations:** 316 Or. 585; 853 P.2d 813; 1993 Ore. LEXIS 87
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fadeley
- **Judges:** Gillette, Fadeley, Van Hoomissen, Carson, Peterson
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580433

## Opinion text

FADELEY, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the court. The statute means what it says. Its plain language should be enforced, not erased on some claim of convenience to courts.
*595 The statute places a duty on the district attorney to timely prosecute a case or dismiss that charge for the time being. The dissent instead would let a trial judge decide what is timely and what is not in disregard of the statute’s express words. The trial judge’s function is to rule on continuance issues under the statute, not to rule on some other basis that the words of the statute do not contemplate.
The words of the statute provide no support for the dissent’s contention that imposing delays in bringing a case to trial — delays neither authorized by any statute nor requested by any party to the case delayed — “ensures that the rights of all parties are considered,” 316 Or at 607.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580433. Public record. Not legal advice.