section 11 compulsory process clause in Oregon

2020The state’s actions interfered with defendant’s “right to obtain the testimony of the witness,” Mai, 294 Or at 272 , protected by the compulsory process clause of Article I, section 11.

1993Where, as here, only preclusion can “achieve the goal[s] of the statute,” State v. Mai, supra, 294 Or at 277 , Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, permits that sanction. 4 Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that the trial court’s imposition of a sanction of preclusion for failure to comply with the notice requirement of OEC 412 does not violate this defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause or the compulsory process clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

1993This court concluded that the compulsory process clause in Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution “protects both the [defendant’s] right to the attendance of the witness and the testimony of the witness,” 294 Or at 272 , and that Oregon’s compulsory process clause is to be construed in the same way that the Supreme Court of the United States construed the virtually identical federal counterpart in Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14 , 87 S Ct 1920 , 18 L Ed 2d 1019 (1967). 294 Or at 272 .

1993This court concluded that the compulsory process clause in Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution “protects both the [defendant’s] right to the attendance of the witness and the testimony of the witness,” 294 Or at 272 , and that Oregon’s compulsory process clause is to be construed in the same way that the Supreme Court of the United States construed the virtually identical federal counterpart in Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14 , 87 S Ct 1920 , 18 L Ed 2d 1019 (1967). 294 Or at 272 .

2009Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 412.03(4)(c), 288 (4th ed 2002) (explaining that the “primary constitutional provisions” that may require admission of evidence under OEC 412(2)(b)(C) are the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation and compulsory process clauses, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302 , 93 S Ct 1038 , 35 L Ed 2d 297 (1973), and the confrontation and compulsory process clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution).

2009Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 412.03(4)(c), 288 (4th ed 2002) (explaining that the “primary constitutional provisions” that may require admission of evidence under OEC 412(2)(b)(C) are the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation and compulsory process clauses, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302 , 93 S Ct 1038 , 35 L Ed 2d 297 (1973), and the confrontation and compulsory process clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution).

1987Cf. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 US _ , 107 S Ct 989 , 94 L Ed 2d 40,53-56 (1987) (“ [Cjriminal defendants have the right * ** * to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.”) (dictum); Davis v. Alaska, 415 US 308 , 94 S Ct 1105 , 39 L Ed 2d 347 (1974) (criminal defendant had Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right to question witness concerning juvenile criminal record notwithstanding state statute making such records inadmissible). 7 Our records office has been unable to locate the exhibit through inquiry of the circuit court and of the district court of

1987Cf. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 US _ , 107 S Ct 989 , 94 L Ed 2d 40,53-56 (1987) (“ [Cjriminal defendants have the right * ** * to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.”) (dictum); Davis v. Alaska, 415 US 308 , 94 S Ct 1105 , 39 L Ed 2d 347 (1974) (criminal defendant had Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right to question witness concerning juvenile criminal record notwithstanding state statute making such records inadmissible). 7 Our records office has been unable to locate the exhibit through inquiry of the circuit court and of the district court of