132.580 Names
of grand jury witnesses required on indictment; exception; effect of failure to
include; procedure to remedy failure.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, when an indictment is
found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury that returned
the indictment, either by testimony in the presence of the grand jury, by
affidavit, by means of simultaneous television transmission under ORS 132.320
(5) or by telephone under ORS 132.320 (7), and the names of those whose reports
were received by such grand jury pursuant to ORS 132.320 (2) must be inserted
at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is filed. The
indorsement shall show whether the witness gave testimony before the grand jury
in person, by affidavit, by means of simultaneous television transmission or by
telephone or filed a report.
(2)(a) An
indictment may include a pseudonym, initials or other signifier instead of the
name of a witness examined before the grand jury if:
(A) The witness
is also a victim of a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005 alleged in the
indictment;
(B) A separate
document containing the name of the witness and the corresponding pseudonym,
initials or other signifier is filed with the clerk of the court at the same
time as the indictment is filed; and
(C) A copy of the
document described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph is provided to the
defense attorney or, if the defendant does not have a lawyer, in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this subsection, at the time of arraignment on the
indictment.
(b) The defense
attorney may orally inform the defendant of the name of the witness contained
in the document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection but may not
provide a copy of the document to the defendant.
(c) If a
defendant is not represented by a lawyer, the district attorney shall provide a
copy of the document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection to the
defendant. At the time of providing the document, the court shall enter an
order prohibiting the defendant from copying the document or providing the
document to any other person.
(d) The document
described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection is confidential with respect
to any person who is not a party to the case. At any time during the proceeding
the court may, upon a finding of good cause, order that the document is not confidential.
Once the final judgment on the case is entered, the document is no longer
confidential.
(3) A witness
examined before the grand jury whose name is not indorsed on the indictment
shall not be permitted to testify at trial without the consent of the
defendant, unless the court finds that:
(a) The name of
the witness was omitted from the indictment by inadvertence;
(b) The name of
the witness was furnished to the defendant by the state at least 10 days before
trial; and
(c) The defendant
will not be prejudiced by the omission. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §59; 1995 c.126 §2;
2003 c.645 §8; 2019 c.338 §2]
132.585 [Repealed by 1959 c.426 §1]
ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1961–1997 · leading case:
State v. Gonzalez, 852 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Gonzalez, 852 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 62× “The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
State Ex Rel. Auto. Emporium, Inc. v. Murchison, 611 P.2d 1169 (Or. 1980).
“The name of a certain witness appeared on the face of the indictment as having been a witness examined before the grand jury, ORS 132.580, and as being a co-owner of the vehicle.”
State v. McDonald, 361 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1961).
“510 provides: “The indictment shall be set aside by the court upon the motion of the defendant in either of the following cases: *32 “(2) When the names o£ the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not inserted at the foot of the indictment nr indorsed thereon.”
State v. Flygare, 525 P.2d 181 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 3× “Thus it is clear under ORS 132.580 ① there was no basis for the objection.”
State v. Stout, 749 P.2d 1174 (Or. 1988).
““(2) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall affect the application of ORS 132.580.” Although the predecessors to ORS 132.”
State v. Dike, 756 P.2d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
““(2) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall affect the application of ORS 132.580.””
State v. Guse, 392 P.2d 257 (Or. 1964).
“Except in a limited class of cases of which this is not a member, there is no authority in this state for an accused to 'look behind the indictment to evaluate the evidence given the grand jury.”
State v. Mitchell, 495 P.2d 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
“” ORS 132.580 provides: “When an indictment is found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is presented to the court.”
State v. Johnson, 527 P.2d 740 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
“He relies on ORS 132.580 and 135.510 (2) which require such indorsement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gonzalez, 852 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(2) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez, 852 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez, 852 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(3) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez, 852 P.2d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
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.