131.045
Appearances by simultaneous electronic transmission. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Criminal
proceeding” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005.
(b) “Parties”
means the State of Oregon and the person being prosecuted.
(c) “Simultaneous
electronic transmission” means television, telephone or any other form of
electronic communication transmission if the form of transmission allows:
(A) The court and
the person making the appearance to communicate with each other during the
proceeding;
(B) A defendant
who is represented by counsel to consult privately with defense counsel during
the proceeding;
(C) The victim to
participate in the proceeding to the same extent that the victim is entitled to
participate when the person making the appearance is physically present in the
court; and
(D) The public to
hear and, if the transmission includes a visual image, to see the appearance if
the public has a right to hear and see the appearance when the person making
the appearance is physically present in the court.
(2) When a
statute authorizes or requires a person to make a personal appearance before a court
in a criminal proceeding, the person may appear by being physically present in
the court or by simultaneous electronic transmission if:
(a) Simultaneous
electronic transmission is authorized by court rule under subsection (3) of
this section;
(b) Except as
otherwise provided by law, the parties in the proceeding and the court agree to
appearance by simultaneous electronic transmission; and
(c) Appearance by
simultaneous electronic transmission is not specifically prohibited by statute.
(3) In order for
a person to appear by simultaneous electronic transmission as provided in this
section, court rules must provide for the use of the specific type of
simultaneous electronic transmission at the court location and for the type of
proceeding in which the person is appearing. Court rules allowing the use of
simultaneous electronic transmission may establish requirements for its use.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (2)(b) of this section, a witness in a criminal
proceeding may not appear before a jury by simultaneous electronic transmission
without the written consent of the parties and the agreement of the court.
(5) This section
does not apply to a hearing under ORS 138.510 to 138.680. [2005 c.566 §4; 2009
c.219 §2]
TIME LIMITATIONS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case:
State v. Agee, 364 P.3d 971 (Or. 2015).
State v. Agee, 364 P.3d 971 (Or. 2015).
“100 [providing that trial court may require, as precondition for granting postponement of trial, requesting party’s consent to depositions of its witnesses]; or “(2) As provided in ORS 131.045 [permitting court appearances by simultaneous electronic transmission].”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 17× “Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Rascon, 346 P.3d 601 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “*846 Defendant argues that the victim’s statements on the videotape constitute the “testimony of a witness” within the meaning of that statute, and, as a result, the admission of the videotape violated the statute’s directive that testimony “be given orally in the presence of…”
State v. McMullin, 346 P.3d 611 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“100; or “(2) As provided in ORS 131.045.” ORS 136.420. Defendant also contends that admission of the videotape violated OEC 403 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 17× “Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Agee (Or. 2015).
“100 [providing that trial court may require, as precondi- tion for granting postponement of trial, requesting party’s consent to deposi- tions of its witnesses]; or “(2) As provided in ORS 131.045 [permitting court appearances by simultaneous electronic transmission].”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.045(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.045(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.045(2) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.045(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.045(4) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
State v. Smith, 344 Or. App. 111 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Before the probation violation hearing, the state moved to allow a witness, H, to testify via simulta- neous electronic transmission pursuant to ORS 131.045. Defendant objected to allowing H to testify remotely.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.